REPUBLIC v. NANA AKUAMOAH BOATENG II; EX PARTE DANSOA AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.

Apaloo C.J. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant is the queenmother of Obomeng and the respondent is the Omanhene [p.915] of the Kwahu Traditional Area. The Obomeng stool is a sub-stool subservient to the paramount stool. The occupant of the Obomeng stool by name Nana Abankwa abdicated and that stool became vacant. As queenmother, the appellant has the customary right of nominating a new candidate for election by the kingmakers.

In exercise of that right, she nominated one Obeng Akrofi for election to the vacant stool. Her nomination appears to have been accepted by some of the stool elders. After customary introduction to two intermediate chiefs, the chief-elect had to be introduced to the Nifahene — the head of the Nifa Division to which the Obomeng stool belonged. This appears to have been done and Nana Akrofi swore the oath of allegiance to the Nifahene. But his customary and legal recognition would be incomplete unless he also swore an oath of allegiance to the respondent who is the overall head of the traditional area. It was the customary prerogative of the Nifahene to introduce the new chief to the Omanhene for this purpose. He attempted to do this but was unsuccessful. Apparently, a rival candidate by name Colonel Osei Wusu had already sworn the oath to him as the Obomenghene.

To assert the right of her chosen candidate to be sworn-in, so to speak, by the respondent, the appellant brought a suit against him in the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs and sought a declaration that her candidate, "Obeng Akrofi was properly and constitutionally elected to the Obomeng stool." Apparently, the Nifahene, Nana Kofi Asiamah, himself had his grievance against the Omanhene. The latter had caused the Obomeng Black stool and other property to be removed from the stool house. Claiming that this transgressed custom, he independently instituted a suit against him in the same forum, namely the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs. These two suits were consolidated for hearing. It is to be noted that notwithstanding the consolidation, these were two different suits, differently numbered. The Nifahene's one against the respondent was numbered ERHC/76/P/8/5 while that of the appellant was numbered ERHC/76/P18/4.

Neither of these two suits was determined on the merits. Had that been done, these proceedings would not have seen the light of day — at any rate, they would not have taken the form in which they were presented to the court