REPULIC v. BREMAN ESIAM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE AKOMANYI II and others

Quao, Ag. J., considered the extent of a traditional council’s judicial authority in light of a statute referred to as “the Act.” Engaging directly with earlier appellate dicta by Apaloo JA in Eku @ Condua III v Acquaah (1968) C.C. 116, the judge expressly declined to accept the proposition that the council’s inherent power to hear disputes between natives survived the statute. He emphasized that adopting that view would undermine the Act’s purpose, which, in the court’s reading, was to confine or circumscribe the council’s judicial remit. Applying that understanding, the court stated that succession-related disputes do not constitute “causes or matters affecting chieftaincy.” The analysis signals that such disputes fall outside the statutory jurisdiction of the traditional council and must be addressed in fora competent under the Act, rather than by reliance on inherent powers. The judgment therefore narrows the council’s judicial role by reference to statutory limits and categorization of matters.