SARKODEE I v. BOATENG II

JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.

The appellant is the Kyidomhene of the New Juaben Traditional Area. On 20 August 1973, he filed a "chieftaincy petition" in the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs. The prayer of the petition was for the "Destoolment of Nana Kwaku Boateng, Omanhene, New Juaben Traditional Area." He is the respondent to this appeal. The petition was brought on a stereotyped form and paragraph 2 of the form requires the petitioner to state the capacity in which he brought the petition. He stated his capacity as "Kyidomhene." The petitioner was required by paragraph 6 of the form to "state in a concise form the facts and particulars" on which he would seek to rely in proof of the charges. His answer was, "see attached charges."

The appellant attached to the petition, twenty charges serially numbered — some of them involving the commission of named [p.719] criminal offences, of the others, one at least, is an offence involving moral turpitude. He then made a certificate to the charges in the following words:

"This is to certify that the contents of the above twenty charges preferred against Nana Kwaku Boateng II, Omanhene of New Juaben Traditional Area, were read by me in the Twi language, interpreted and explained to such of the signatories therein who could not read and write, but who are perfectly prepared to substantiate the same before touching pen with which their marks and thumbprints were made thereto."

The names of five persons were then given and their customary offices were stated against their names. These include the Krontihene, the Twafohene and the Sanaahene. Except the Abosohene, Nana Adonten Boateng, who apparently signed the petition, all the others were illiterates and their marks were made. The charges were then signed by the appellant and bears the date, 18 December 1968.

The wording of the certificate suggests that the named elders were not co-petitioners but proposed witnesses. A period of almost five years elapsed between the date of the signing of the petition and the date it was actually lodged before the tribunal. We have been told that by that date, all the named elders were dead. Apparently, only the petitioner survived.

The fact of their deaths before the lodgment of the petition and the wording of the certificate which shows that their role was merely going to be that of witnesses, make it plain that the only real petitioner was the appellant. Yet when the petition was formally put before the chieftaincy tribunal, it