REPUBLIC vrs JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE ANOMABO TRAD. COUNCIL & 3 ORS

ANTECEDENTS

The interested party herein issued a writ of summons before the Judicial Committee of the Anomabo Traditional Council (the Respondent herein), seeking reliefs endorsed thereon against the Appellants herein. Subsequently, the interested party filed a motion for an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain 1st Appellant from installing 2nd Appellant as Chief. The Appellants however proceeded with the installation and were cited for contempt by the interested party before the High Court, Mankesim, where they were both convicted and sentenced.

At the hearing of the motion for contempt, Appellants raised a preliminary legal issue with the writ of summons which was pending before the Respondent (the basis for the motion for contempt). They contended that contrary to the requirements of Regulation 4(1) (b) of the Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972, (L.I 798), the writ was signed by counsel instead of the interested party, accordingly same was void and cannot be relied upon to commence any legal action before the Judicial Committee and by extension, the motion for contempt.

In a judgment delivered on the 17th of April 2024, the Appellants were found liable for contempt but submissions that the writ was void, was upheld and the court ruled thus:

“I therefore find and hold that the writ issued by the applicant herein at the judicial committee of the Anomabo Traditional Council is void and a nullity because it was in breach of Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972, (L.I 798).”

It is this ruling declaring the writ void and a nullity, which triggered Appellants application for judicial review in the nature of prohibition.

While the contempt application was pending before the High Court, Appellants applied to the respondent to set aside the writ of summons pending before it on grounds of nullity. Respondent dismissed the application on 22nd February 2024. Pursuant to leave, appellants filed an interlocutory appeal against the decision before the Central Regional House of Chiefs.

Riding on the High Court’s declaration that the writ was a nullity, Solicitors of appellants by a letter dated 22nd April 2024, wrote to Respondent stating that pursuant to the declaration by the High Court, Mankesim that the writ was a nullity, Respondent could not continue hearing the suit.

Appellants contend that regardless of the notifica