Try asking the following...
RULING
GEORGINA WOOD CJ:
I have had the opportunity to read the opinions of my respected brothers and sister in this matter. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the majority views expressed by my respected brethren. To the contrary, I am inclined to agree with the opinion of my brother Dotse JSC. Consequently, it would in my view, be helpful if I briefly stated my reasons for allowing this application which seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the High Court Koforidua dated 13th December, 2007.
The interested party who was the Plaintiff in the original action sued the Defendants, the Applicants herein for the following reliefs:
A declaration that the Plaintiff body is the only lawful and statutory Traditional Council in Akuapim
A declaration that the defendants so-called Traditional Council, namely Akuapim Anafo Traditional Council, Okere Traditional Council, and Akuapim Guan Traditional Council respectively are null and void.
An injunction restraining the Defendants from using, operating as, dealing in or in any way claiming through the said respective Councils.
An injunction restraining the Defendants from claiming to be the Omanhene or Presidents of the said respective Councils.
In my thinking, the “claiming through the said respective Councils” referred to in relief 3 can only be related to claim to be an Omanhene as expressed in relief 4.
The Defendants, after being served with the writ, filed a motion to set aside the writ on the grounds that the High Court, Koforidua lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as it was one affecting chieftaincy.
On the 13th day of December 2007, the High Court ruled on the motion by saying it was not a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy and therefore it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, the Applicant filed a motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the court for an order of certiorari directed at the High Court, Koforidua.
The ground was couched in these terms:
“That the learned Trial Judge erred in law by holding that the matter before him was not a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy and by reason of the said error wrongfully assumed jurisdiction in a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.”
I must at the outset state that I am not entirely too happy with this formulation. On the surface, it reads like an ordinary appeal ground. But we are here to do substantial justice to