REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION), ACCRA
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS), JSC (PRESIDING)
- BENIN, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- MARFUL-SAU, JSC
- KOTEY, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Nii Agyemankese III filed a motion to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court seeking to quash an order by Justice Abodakpi and to prevent the induction of a third party as Ga Mantse. The judicial review was heard on December 18, 2018. The case revolved around whether the High Court had jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters and if the applicant had standing. The Supreme Court found that the substantive matter was a chieftaincy issue over which the trial court had no jurisdiction. The prior orders from Justices Azu, Dekyem, and Abodakpi were quashed, and the related suit was struck from the High Court Cause list.
APPAU, JSC:-
On 13th November 2018, the applicant herein Nii Agyemankese III, filed a motion on notice to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in the nature of Certiorari and Prohibition; (i) to remove into this Court for the purpose of it being quashed the Order of the High Court, Accra Coram, Justice Nicholas Abodakpi dated 2nd November 2018 and (ii) a further order to prohibit the 1st interested party Nii Dodoo Nsaki II from inducting the 3rd interested party into office as Ga Mantse. The Order of Justice Nicholas Abodakpi which is the subject of the quashing order being sought by the applicant was directed to the 1st interested party to purge himself of his contempt of court for non-compliance with an earlier Order of Mandamus issued by Justice Gifty Dekyem dated 17th January 2017. Justice Gifty Dekyem’s Order in question was directed to the 1st interested party to induct the 3rd interested party Nii Tackie Adama Latse II into office as the Ga Mantse.
When the judicial review application came on for hearing on the 18th day of December 2018, counsel for the 2nd and 3rd interested parties gave notice of their intention to rely on a preliminary objection to the propriety of the application. The grounds of the objection were:
i. That the applicant had no locus to bring the application;
ii. That the applicant was not a party in the suit in which the order he is seeking to quash by certiorari was made;
iii. That the title to the application is erroneous; and
iv. That the application lacked merits and must be dismissed.
After hearing briefly from counsel for the 2nd and 3rd interested parties on the preliminary objection, the Court, instead of determining the preliminary objection, invited the lawyers representing all the parties in the matter to address it on the issue as to whether or not the substantive suit or action from which the Order of Justice Nicholas Abodakpi emerged, was not a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. Our invitation was grounded on the premise that all courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as provided under article 131 (4) of the Constitution, 1992, are insulated from exercising jurisdiction over chieftaincy matters.
Section 57 of the Courts Act, 1993 [Act 459] provides that; “Subject to the Constitution, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, a Regional Tribunal, a Circuit Court and a District Court shall not entertain either at first instance or on appeal