REPUBLIC v. CENTRAL REGION HOUSE OF CHIEFS & NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS
December 16, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ABBAN (MRS) JA (PRESIDING)
- KANYOKE JA
- APALOO JA
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
December 16, 2010
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice R. K. Apaloo JA, writing for a unanimous Ghana Court of Appeal panel with Justices Henrietta Abban JA and S. E. Kanyoke JA concurring, dismissed an appeal brought by Nana Idan Andoh X, the interested party whose entry in the National Register of Chiefs as Omanhene of Kwamankese had been quashed by the High Court, Cape Coast. The respondent, Nana Idun Gyan IX, had sought certiorari against the Central Regional House of Chiefs, the National House of Chiefs and the Chieftaincy Secretariat, arguing that administrative steps to gazette Andoh X were taken while a destoolment petition remained pending before the Central Regional House’s Judicial Committee and without notice to him. Treating the appellant’s confusing amended grounds under the general weight-of-evidence ground, the Court of Appeal applied Tuakwa v Bosom, found the High Court stayed within its supervisory jurisdiction and relied properly on documentary evidence, including a search report confirming the petition was still pending and no leave had been granted for discontinuance. The court held certiorari appropriate and affirmed the High Court’s decision.
J U D G M E N T
APALOO, JA:
This appeal is seeking the reversal of a ruling of the High Court Cape Coast rendered on 13th January 2006. The notice of appeal filed by the Interested Party/Appellant was to the effect that;
“the judgment of His Lordship Nana Gyamera-Tawiah J, cannot be supported by the weight of the affidavit evidence before the Court.”
It is noted that in an amended statement of case filed by the Interested Party/ Appellant on 18/6/2007, the Appellant failed to file an amended grounds of
appeal to disclose the nature of the additional grounds this Court permitted him to argue but proceeded to argue them nevertheless. On pages 10, 13 and 14 of his statement Counsel wrote the following;
“Misdirection and/or error of law
Particulars
From the documentary evidence before him the learned Judge relied solely on a search report obtained by the Respondent in determining the question as to whether there was a pending suit at the Judicial Committee of the Central Region House of Chiefs.”
On page 13 Counsel wrote:
“Misdirection and/or error of law
Insufficiency of evidence to establish the claim that there was a pending case before the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs.
Particulars
The learned trial Judge of the Court below admitted in his Ruling that;
None of the three Respondents responded to the application and I find it quite disturbing because at all material time every document filed by the applicant was served on the respondents”.
Again on page 14 Counsel wrote
“Misdirection and/or error of law.
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself on his evaluation of the significance of the Notice of Discontinuance/Withdrawal.
Particulars
The Petitioners had filed a Notice of Discontinuance of their own petition but nevertheless the significance of the Notice of Discontinuance/Withdrawal got lost on the learned Judge.”
When Counsel begins to express himself in this manner to represent grounds of appeal one is at a loss in discovering the nature of the leave granted him by the Court of appeal to amend his grounds of appeal. Legal Practice has it that where leave has been granted to amend, the amended document is filed pursuant to that leave. Nowhere in this record do I find such a document. This omission apart, C1 19, the Court of Appeal Rules are clear that “where the grounds of appeal allege misdirection or error in law, particulars of the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.” See Rule 8(4) of C1 19