2001
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court of Ghana appeal arose from a chieftaincy dispute in the Edina Traditional Area. Michael Conduah petitioned the Central Region House of Chiefs Judicial Committee, which on 23 September 1996 upheld his claim, reserved reasons, and awarded costs against respondents including Joseph Cobbina Anwowin. The appellants sought certiorari in the Cape Coast High Court to quash the unreasoned decision; both the High Court and Court of Appeal rejected arguments that reasons must accompany the judgment. The Supreme Court, per Adzoe, J.S.C., held Rule 11 of C.I. 27 does not require simultaneity of reasons, but via Rule 28 the High Courts Order 63 Rule 2A imposes a six-week limit for judgments, making timely reasons integral. Because proceedings closed 9 September, the deadline was 21 October; reasons delivered on 3 December were invalid. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Committees decision, with Kpegah, J.S.C. concurring and emphasizing the mandatory nature of the six-week rule.
T.K. ADZOE, J.S.C.:
The issues for determination in this appeal are of great interest. They are also not very simple. They include the following which I identify as the major ones.
(1) Is the judicial committee of the Regional House of Chiefs bound in law by Rule 11 of C.I. 27, (the National and Regional House of Chiefs (Procedure) Rules 19 -) to give the reasons for its judgment at the time that the judgment is announced? Otherwise stated, is it wrong for the Judicial Committee to announce its judgment and reserve for another date the reasons for the judgment?
(2) Does the law require the Judicial Committee to deliver judgment Within a limited period of time after the close of the hearing of the Case?
(3) If there is a time limit for the delivery of a judgment, then what is the effect of a judgment in which reasons are not stated but reserved and not given within the period for delivery of the judgment?
The first issue was raised before the High Court; issue (2) came up in the Court of Appeal and has extended to issue (3) before us. The facts will help us to understand the problem.
On 23rd September, 1996, the Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs announced its decision in a chieftaincy suit involving the appellants herein. They were the Respondents to a chieftaincy petition filed before the Judicial Committee by one Michael Conduah. The parties hail from the Edina Traditional Area and the dispute was over succession to the Omanhene Stool of that Traditional Area. The decision announced by the Judicial Committee was brief and clear. I quote it in full.
"After listening to the parties, their counsel and after reading the evidence adduced, we hold the opinion that the Petitioner's claim should be upheld. Reasons will be given later. Costs assessed at ¢300,000.00 against the respondent".
The respondents mentioned in that judgment are the appellants herein. The Committee did not fix any date for delivery of the reasons. The parties went home that day 23rd September, 1996 expecting hearing notices for the reasons. No notice was sent to them. Then on Thursday, 10th October, 1996, the Daily Graphic carried a story announcing that the judicial committee had delivered its ruling in the matter on 11th September, 1996. According to the Graphic the Judicial Committee had declared that Michael Conduah, the Petitioner, had satisfied all conditions to succeed the late Edinamanhene Nana Kofi Conduah v. This publication was certainly false and m