REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT REGISTRAR, KUMASI AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE YIADOM I

JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.

Adade J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. As we understand the case for the applicant, there are two parts to this application, plus a possible third.

The first part is a convoluted, indirect and concealed application for certiorari under article 119 of the Constitution, 1979 asking this court "for an order quashing the ruling of Quashie-Sam J. of 18 October 1979, upon an application in the nature of quo warranto brought by the applicant herein against the second respondent herein."

The second part of the application, also purporting to be made under the same article 119 of the Constitution, 1979, shored up by article 118 of the same Constitution, asks the court to give directions to the High Court with respect to the High Court's jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. We have put "chieftaincy matters" 'in italics because out of this term arises the possible third request. For if this court should accede to the second application and proceed to give the required directions, and if the court should pronounce that the High Court has jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters, then, following out of counsel's submissions, there is a third request to this court to say "how the jurisdiction, if it exists, is to be exercised." (See paragraph (3) of the applicant's affidavit dated 25 February 1983.) In argument, this was reduced to asking the court to explain: (a) what are "chieftaincy matters"? and (b) which, if not all, chieftaincy matters the High Court can lawfully handle?

We shall now proceed to deal with these various pleas. First the application for certiorari. We have described this application as indirect. The motion filed on 25 February 1983 does not ask for certiorari. In fact, that word does not appear anywhere, either in the motion, or in the accompanying affidavit and statement of counsel. The motion is entitled:

"Motion for directions in the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, under articles 118 and 119 of the Constitution, 1979, and section 9 of the P.N.D.C. (Establishment) Proclamation, 1982."

And it says:

“Please take notice that this honourable court will be moved for and on behalf of the applicant herein for directions in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this court over the inferior courts to enable the enforcement of her rights as queenmother [p.609] against an unlawful usurpation of the position of chief, and for an interpretation of the provisions of the said Constitution as retained in force