REPUBLIC v. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE ASOGLI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL & OTHERS
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING)
- YEBOAH, JSC
- BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC
- APPAU, JSC
- PWAMANG, JSC
Areas of Law
- Chieftaincy Law
- Judicial Review
2018
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal which had dismissed the appellants' certiorari application on the grounds that the judicial committee of the Asogli Traditional Council was not properly constituted as per section 29 (2) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 [Act 759]. The Supreme Court restored the decision of the trial High Court, agreeing that the judicial committee was indeed improperly constituted, but on different grounds than those originally stated by the trial court.
APPAU, JSC:-
The facts that gave rise to this appeal are quite straightforward and not in dispute whatsoever between the parties. On 29th March 2011, the interested parties/ respondents herein summoned the appellants herein before the Asogli Traditional Council seeking certain declarations which fell within the jurisdiction of the Council. A judicial committee was put in place to determine the matter between the parties. On the 9th of May 2013, the judicial committee that heard the matter delivered judgment in favour of the interested parties/respondents. The appellants appealed against the decision of the judicial committee to the Volta Regional House of Chiefs, Ho but their appeal was struck-out by the judicial committee of the Regional House as having been filed out of time. Appellants thereafter, filed a judicial review application before the High Court, Ho, pursuant to an extension of time granted them by the trial High Court, praying for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the judicial committee of the Asogli Traditional Council on the following grounds:
1. The Chiefs who attended the meeting of the Asogli Traditional Council on 22nd January 2012 at which meeting the pool of eleven (11) chiefs were nominated by the Council from which the members of the Judicial Committee of the Council that sat on the parties case were selected or appointed did not have their names registered or entered in the Chieftaincy bulletin to clothe them with authority to so act.
2. The meeting at which the pool of chiefs was selected from which the judicial committee members were appointed, lacked the requisite forum of more than half the total membership of the Council at the time it purported to selected the pool of chiefs.
3. The judicial committee exceeded its jurisdiction when it appointed a Stool Father for the Eho Stool when there was no claim before the Judicial Committee for the appointment of a Stool Father.
In their submissions before the trial High Court, the appellants did not limit their arguments to the grounds re-called above. They also canvassed a legal point that there was no meeting of the Asogli Traditional Council to appoint the three-member judicial committee that heard their case. The judicial committee was therefore not appointed by the Asogli Traditional Council in compliance with the provisions of section 29 (2) of the Chieftaincy Act, [Act 759]. The trial High Court did not consider this last argument in its judgment but never