REPUBLIC v. STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION; EX PARTE ASIBU
February 9, 1981
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
February 9, 1981
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Cecilia Koranteng-Addow considered an application by a party in an ongoing boundary dispute between Gomoa Fetteh and Awutu and Co. against traditional leaders including Nai Odupong Awushie Tetteh II, Nai Kwaku Bentum II, and Wulomo Mensah. The applicant sought to prohibit the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner from continuing the hearing, arguing NRCD 172 is inconsistent with Article 114(1) of the 1979 Constitution because the Commissioner is an agency of the Ministry of Lands. The court examined the Commissioner's statutory framework, recognizing it as an administrative tribunal within the Ministry yet in substance a court of law forming part of Ghana’s inferior courts. Finding no constitutional infirmity, the court dismissed the prohibition but, given the matter’s significance and ongoing practice, referred the constitutional question to the Supreme Court by way of case stated for final interpretation.
JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.
By article 114 (1) of the Constitution, 1979 the judicial power of Ghana is vested in the judiciary, and no organ or agency of the executive or legislature has any final judicial, power. The Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1973 (NRCD 172), s. 4 confers judicial power on the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner to hear and determine questions or disputes relating to the boundaries of stool lands. In this application, Mr. da Rocha has submitted that NRCD 172 is inconsistent with article 114 of the Constitution, 1979 because the commissioner is an organ or agency of the Ministry of Lands which is part of the executive. He has therefore called upon the court to prohibit the commissioner from hearing this case and to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion.
[p.1042]
The applicant in this matter is one of the parties in a boundary dispute which is before the commissioner. The dispute is entitled: "In the matter of the boundary dispute between Gomoa Fetteh and Awutu and Co. and (1) Nai Odupong Awushie Tetteh II, Ebla Odefey of Awutu Traditional Area, Awutu, (2) Nai Kwaku Bentum II, Ema Twufi Odefey of Awutu and Wulomo Mensah of Amanfrom Odupong-Kpehe Market (Kasewa), Senya Breku Paramount Stool . . ." During the course of the hearing by the commissioner, counsel drew his attention to the provisions of the Constitution, 1979, and invited him to refer the matter to the Supreme Court under article 118(2) of the Constitution, 1979. The commissioner ruled that he has jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the matter. But in fairness to him, Mr da Rocha told the court that since this application was served on the commissioner, he has suspended further hearing pending the outcome of these proceedings.
I must say that there are no counter arguments to these submissions. Even though an affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent by the registrar of the commissioner, the Attorney-General's representative who has been appearing on his behalf did not attend court to reply to submissions by counsel for the applicant. So I had no assistance from that quarter. I was constrained to hear the matter after some adjournments.
There is no dispute about the status of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner. It is an administrative tribunal, and from the provisions of the NRCD 172, it is plain that it is enmeshed in the administrative machinery of the Ministry of Lands and an agency or orga