November 15, 2011
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court ruling addresses an application to quash, by certiorari, a High Court order of mandamus obtained by the First Interested Party directing the Registrar of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs to transmit Chieftaincy Declaration Forms to the National House of Chiefs. The forms had been lodged via the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Council on 7 June 1999, and the Regional House later confirmed, on 16 December 2010, that they had not been transmitted. The Applicant asserted that the mandamus was out of time under Order 55 rule 3(1) and that a pending petition contesting the First Interested Party’s enstoolment provided good reason not to transmit. The majority (Atuguba JSC, with Ansah JSC, Baffoe-Bonnie JSC, and Akoto-Bamfo JSC concurring) held that prolonged inaction constituted constructive refusal, so time ran well before 2010; they emphasized mandamus’s discretionary nature and section 27’s automatic stay in chieftaincy appeals. Dr. Date-Bah JSC dissented, reasoning that time ran only from the 16 December 2010 notice and that no fundamental error warranted certiorari.
R U L I N G
ATUGUBA, J.S.C:
I have had the advantage of reading the encyclopaedic ruling of my masterly brother Dr. Date-Bah JSC. As I find myself, with all the respect, unable to agree with everything in his formidable and fulsome judgment I proceed to state my opinion briefly.
As the facts have been fully set out by him I would only refer to them where necessary.
The Accrual of the Applicant’s right to apply for Mandamus
0.55 r. 3, as far as relevant to this case, provides as follows:
“3. Time for making application
An application for judicial review shall be made not later than six months from the date of the occurrence of the event giving grounds for making the application.”
What then in this case would constitute “the date of the occurrence of the event giving grounds” for making the application for mandamus? The operative date for the application would be the date on which the Registrar of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs refused to transmit to the National House of Chiefs the chieftaincy forms of the First Interested party submitted on his behalf by the Traditional Council.
It is important to set out in this connection the relevant occurrences. The first interested party submitted his Chieftaincy forms and necessary fees to the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Council on 7/6/1999 for onward transmission to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs for further transmission to the National House of Chiefs for “gazette notification”. In a letter (Exh. AKS4) from his solicitors purportedly dated 2/12/2010 but said (Exh. AKS5) to have been dated 4/11/2010 the 1st interested party enquired whether his said chieftaincy forms had been transmitted to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs. Exhibit AKS5 dated 9/11/2010 from the traditional Council replied that the said chieftaincy forms had been forwarded to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs on 7/6/1999. This assertion is confirmed by Exh. AKS 3.
On 16/12/2010 the 1st interested party, per his solicitors wrote (Exh. AKS6) to the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs enquiring whether the said chieftaincy forms had been transmitted to the National House of Chiefs. On the same 16/12/2010 the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs, replied (exh. AKS 7) that the said forms had not been so transmitted.
The first interested party then filed his mandamus application in the High Court, Koforidua on 17/12/2010. It is said that time began to run for the purposes of 0.55 r.3(1) of C147 as from the said 16/12/2010, namely the da