REPUBLIC v. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS AND OTHERS; EX PARTE FAIBIL III AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

The appellant was until the events leading to the proceedings in the High Court, Accra, which has resulted in this appeal, the Omanhene of Wasa Fiase Traditional Area with the stool name, Nana Ntsiful Essel IV. The facts before the court show that he was enstooled on 19 March 1975. A report of that enstoolment was forwarded to the registrar of the National House of Chiefs on 15 April 1975 by the Western Regional House of Chiefs under section 15(1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). The facts further show that along with the report was a caution letter in the following terms:

“Please note that a petition against the installation of Nana Amihiere Agyiliha as Nana Ntsiful Essel IV, Omanhene of Wasa Fiase Traditional Area, has been filed before the judicial committee of this house.”

The undisputed evidence shows that the appellant's enstoolment in spite of the "warning letter" was published in the Local Government Bulletin No.27 of 20 June 1975. It is therefore clear that from 20 June 1975 the appellant became the recognised Omanhene of the Wasa Fiase Traditional Area.

The respondents to the appeal are two divisional chiefs in the Wasa Fiase Traditional Area. They are also kingmakers of the Omanhene stool of that area. The evidence shows that the two had supported the appellant's enstoolment from 1975 up to 1982 when they presented their application to the High Court for mandamus to have the appellant's name removed from the National Register of Chiefs.

Their complaint as gathered from the affidavit sworn to by the first respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of the second respondent (with the authority of the latter) is in the following language:

"(3) That the first applicant and I are divisional chiefs in the Wasa Fiase Traditional Area, and kingmakers of the paramount stool of Wasa Fiase and members of the Wasa Fiase Traditional Council.

(4) That I am advised and verily believe the same to be true that the first and second respondents have the legal duty for the registration of chiefs and the notification in the Gazette or otherwise of the status of persons as chiefs in Ghana, the third respondent is the agency through which the said public notification is effected.

(5) That by a circular letter No. N.H.C. 1/S.F. 23 Vol. 1/55 dated 5 June 1974 the National House of Chiefs admonished the registrars of all regional houses of chiefs not to despatch CD forms in respect of disputed enstoolment to the National [p.7