REPUBLIC v. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF BREMAN ASIKUMA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

HONYENUGA, J.A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 31st day of March 2010. The said court dismissed an application for judicial review in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Breman Asikuma Traditional Council and to prohibit it from further proceeding to hear a Chieftaincy petition between the parties.

The facts of this appeal are that there were two actions filed before the Breman Asikuma Traditional Council. The first action was entitled:-

(1) Ebusuapanyin Kofi Etsiako & Ors. V Ebusuapanyin Kwao Baffoe & Ors.

(2) Ebusuapanyin Obodae Adjei & Ors. V Ebusuapanyin Kow Hinson & Mr. Lindsay

In the first suit, the reliefs sought by the interested parties include a Declaration that:

“a) that the stool of Amanfopong belong to the two sections of Breman Asikuma and Saltpond.

b) Both sections are entitled to ascend to the Amanfopong stool”.

While the proceedings were pending before the said Traditional Council, the respondents in the suit filed an application at the High Court to prohibit the traditional council from proceeding to hear the matter. The High Court refused the application and an appeal was lodged against the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal differently constituted dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the High Court and further ordered that the suit be heard by the Judicial Committee of the traditional Council which is exclusively charged to hear the matter between the parties. This court also observed that the appeal may be regarded as an attempt by the appellant to prevent the interested parties from having a forum for their complaint to be heard. In the second action before the Breman Asikuma traditional council, the interested parties sought a declaration inter alia:-

“(a) A declaration that the stool of Amanfopong belongs to the two (2) sections namely Breman Asikuma and Saltpond.

(e) A declaration that the purported nomination, election and enstoolment of the 2nd respondent be nullified as it was not performed customarily.

(f) An injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from acting or holding himself out as a chief of Breman Amanfopong”.

The suits proceeded to hearing. The petitioners/interested parties closed their case. The applicant/appellant opened his case but could not complete it but used several means to delay the hearing so as to achieve his target of filing the instant application for Judicial review. On th