REPUBLIC v WESTERN REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, EX PARTE ADUHENE II

Pursuant to leave granted by the Sekondi High Court on 9 January 1992, the applicantrespondent (to be hereinafter referred to as the “respondent”) applied for the twin remedies of certiorari and prohibition. The purpose was to enable proceedings then pending before the Western Region House of Chiefs entitled: Ebusuapanyin Kwasi Kaye (Substituted by P K K Kwarteng) v Nana Kwabena Aduhene II to be brought up and quashed and to restrain the regional house of chiefs from hearing the said action. The sole ground upon which the application was made was that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The court, upon hearing the motion granted the reliefs sought and the respondent-appellant (to be hereinafter referred to as the “appellant”) who was clearly dissatisfied, appealed to this court on a number of grounds. At the hearing, two of the grounds were abandoned and consequently the appeal rested on only two grounds namely (a) and (b) which read as follows:

(a) The learned High Court judge erred in law when he ruled that the judicial committee of the Western Regional House of Chiefs had no jurisdiction over the case when in fact the Omanhene was the respondent in the case.

(b) The learned High Court judge’s decision was wrong since there was overwhelming evidence that the nomination, election and installation of Nana Kwadwo Fuachie II were all done by the Omanhene, the 1st respondent herein contrary to custom and the reliefs were sought to question the improper exercise of the powers and authority of the paramount chief.

The respondents had, in the court below, made a very simple case. They had contended that having regard to the reliefs sought in the petition before the Western Regional House of Chiefs, which was annexed as exhibit A in the certiorari proceedings, the respondent tribunal (the Western Regional House of Chiefs), had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition since the matter affected the Sefwi Asafo stool, a divisional, not a paramount stool.

Before us the appellant had complained that the learned trial judge’s finding in favour of the respondents on this issue was clearly wrong in so far as a paramount stool holder was one of the parties in that litigation. Counsel’s contention then was that by section 23(1) of the Chieftaincy Act 1971 (Act 370), the regional house of chiefs had original jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. On the contrary, he maintained, the jurisdiction of the traditional council was