REPUBLIC v. NII KWAO OBUABASA II & OTHERS

GYAESAYOR, JA

The appellant/applicant in this appeal describes himself as the Mantse (Chief) of Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region. His appeal is against the ruling of the High Court, Accra dated 23rd October, 2018.

In that ruling, the High Court dismissed a contempt application brought by him to have the respondents punished for acts which he said amounted to contempt.

He premised his claim on the fact that the respondents wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders of injunction placed on them by the judicial committee of the Greater Accra Traditional Council on 5th February 1982 and in 1994 in the case of a default judgment in the case of Numo Ayittey Cobblah & Ors vrs. Ayittey Abofu II and other.

It is the case of the applicant/appellant (hereinafter called applicant) that the respondents are aware of his installation as Kwabenya Mantse following the publication of that fact in the Ghanaian Times i.e. exhibit ‘G’ and also in the local government bulletin. In spite of this notification according to applicant, the respondent defied the orders of the judicial bodies and installed the 1st respondent as Manye (Queen mother of Kwabenya) and who continues to parade herself as such. To the applicant, the conduct of respondents’ amount to contempt and therefore wanted the court to punish them.

The respondent on the other hand challenges the assertions of applicant and resisted the charge of contempt filed called against them. They are challenging the claim of applicant to be chief of Kwabenya. They exhibited letters being replies from the Ga Traditional Council, the Greater Accra Traditional Council and the National House of Chief which all denied that they have records to show that applicant had ever been installed as chief of Kwabenya. In effect they are denying that the applicant appears in their records as chief. These are marked as exhibit 1, 1A and 2.

In 1993, the then secretary of chieftaincy affairs Nana Akuoku Sarpong wrote that the insertion of applicant’s name in the local government bulletin as the chief of Kwabenya was a mistake having been misled by misinformation and a mistaken belief. The depositions in support of the inclusion of applicants was withdrawn and that document in the view of this court is dead and buried and of no value and does not support the claim of the applicant, that he is the duly accepted chief of Kwabenya.

Further, the respondent averred that the judgment of the Ga Traditional Council was subject of an arbitrat