REPUBLIC v. P.N.D.C. SECRETARY, P.N.D.C. SECRETARIAT AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE OTI AND OTHERS
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- LUTTERODT J
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
1991
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Following the death of Nii Aponsah III, Otublohum Mantse, in 1989, a dispute arose among the ruling houses of the Ga Traditional Council regarding the election of a new Otublohum Mantse. The second respondent appointed a panel of non-chiefs to determine the dispute, leading to a government white paper based on the panel's findings. The applicants sought an order of certiorari to quash the white paper, arguing the panel's appointment was ultra vires and it lacked jurisdiction. The court held that the panel was validly appointed under P.N.D.C.L. 42, and the retrospective validation by E.I. 25 of 1991 was lawful. The court found that the parties' participation in the proceedings estopped them from challenging the panel's jurisdiction, and ultimately dismissed the application.
JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.
After the death and burial of Nii Aponsah III, Otublohum Mantse in 1989 the different ruling houses of this division of the Ga Traditional Council became embroiled in a dispute which has been described by the applicants as “touching the rights of the traditional office holders of the respective ruling houses for the nomination, election or installation of a new Otublohum Mantse.”
The three applicants, who are representatives of their respective ruling houses, contend that while that dispute was pending before the Ga Traditional Council the second respondent withdrew the matter and appointed a panel of non-chiefs to hear and determine same, with a government white paper being subsequently published in respect of that panel’s findings.
The applicants are in these proceedings, therefore praying for an order of certiorari to issue to bring up to be quashed the government white paper on the report of the panel so appointed by the second respondent. The application is founded on two main grounds: First on error of law apparent on the face of the white paper confirming acts which are null and void. Happily the applicants have particularised these null and void acts. These are:
(a) The appointment by the second respondent of the panel to hear the Otublohum chieftaincy dispute. This is described as being ultra vires.
(b) The panel lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine a chieftaincy dispute.
Then the second ground upon which relief is sought is that the second respondent was by virtue of the white paper confirming a fundamentally illegal act. I shall now deal in depth with the arguments advanced in favour and in opposition to the action.
The basic argument of counsel for the applicants is that the act of the second respondent in appointing a panel to determine what in all respects is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is null and void. Counsel contends that this is because at the time the appointment was made there was in fact and in truth no legal backing for it, a fact which can unquestionably be gathered from the Republic’s own conduct by the passage of the Committee of Inquiry into the Otublohum Chieftaincy and Traditional Affairs Instrument, 1991 (E.I. 25 of 1991). The argument of counsel therefore is that, not only has this law been made in bad faith, for the purpose of giving validity to an invalid act, but it also appears that by this piece of legislation, the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the motion and