THE REPUBLIC VRS EBUSUAPANYIN NANA QUANSAH HEAD OF NANA FRITSI/FLETCHER ANONA FAMILY ANONA, FRANCIS EBO MENSAH ACCRA, EX PARTE OGYAFEDUM OKAA IV, NANA OKAA PALACE H/NO. AN 142/2 AWIANO ANOMABO

I. INTRODUCTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

[1] I precede this Judgment with the statement of the law set down by Acquah, JSC, in Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd. [1997-98] 1 GLR 768 , that "[t]he law was that where an enactment had prescribed a special procedure by which something was to be done, it was that procedure alone that was to be followed." [See

also Jonah v Kulendi & Kulendi [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 272 .] However, the question arises in the case at hand whether this principle demands a strict interpretation of the rules governing commencement of actions by writ of summons before the Judicial Committee of a Traditional Council, thereby ousting judicial discretion and necessitating the setting aside of nonconforming processes.

[2] It may be prudent to set out here a brief summary of the facts of the case as gleaned from the Record of Appeal. Nana Okaa IV, Chief of Awiano, Anomabo, the Applicant/Appellant (the “Appellant”), filed a suit against the Respondents/Respondents (the “Respondents) at the Judicial Committee of the Anomabo Traditional Council, claiming the family of the Respondents had made adverse claims to his stool and stool name. The Appellant alleges that notwithstanding the pendency of this suit and the interlocutory injunction filed against the Respondents, they proceeded to install the 2nd Respondent as the Chief of Awiano, Anomabo, with the stool name Nana Okaa, II.

[3] On the grounds that the Respondents' actions in the installation of the 2nd Respondent as Chief was an affront to the justice system, interfered with the smooth administration of justice and disrespected the authority of the court, the Appellant constituted an action for an order convicting the Respondents for contempt of court before the lower trial Court.

[4] The present appeal calls upon this Court to determine whether the High Court, Mankessim, was right in upholding in its Judgment dated April 17, 2024, the contention of the Respondents that the writ of summons issued by the Appellant to commence action before the Anomabo Traditional Council was fundamentally flawed and therefore incapable of supporting the application for contempt of court brought against them by the Appellant.

[5] Specifically, the Respondents had argued in their defence to the claims of the Appellant that the writ was null and void due to non-compliance with the requirements of **Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Chieftaincy (Pr