THE REPUBLIC v. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS & ORS EX PARTE: NANA KWESI PEPRAH II

HONYENUGA, J.A.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 24th day of March 2010. The said Court dismissed an application for Judicial Review in the nature of Certiorari to quash the decision of the research committee of the National House of Chiefs. The applicant/appellant would be referred to simply as the appellant and the respondents as the respondents.

The facts of this appeal are that the appellant was the gazetted chief of Ayanfuri having had his name approved on the National Registrar of Chiefs on the 29th day of August 1986. On the 30th day of January 2009, the appellant had his name expunged from the register of National House of Chiefs by the 1st respondent upon recommendations from the Research Committee of the said house. When the appellant got notice of the removal of his name, he caused his Lawyers to write a strongly-worded letter to the 1st respondent demanding that the said action be rectified forthwith. After waiting for sometime without a response from the 1st respondent, he filed an application for judicial review in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the research committee of the 1st respondent. The grounds of his application for certiorari were:-

“(a) The respondents did not have the power or authority to expunge my name from the National Registrar of Chiefs.

(b) That the action of the respondents sin against the rules of natural justice”.

Upon hearing both Lawyers for the parties, the learned trial judge dismissed the application for certiorari as unmeritorious and awarded costs of GH¢500.00 against the appellant. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial judge, the appellant filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds which were later amended as follows:-

“A. The judgment is against the weight of evidence.

B. The trial Court erred in law by confirming the decision of the respondents in the light of the constitutional provision of Article 275 of the 1992 Constitution which provided categories of offences for which a chiefs name can be removed from the National Register of Chiefs.

C. The Court erred in law by making a finding of fact that the respondents have power to remove or expunge from the National Register of Chiefs, names of chiefs whose names have been entered under section 59(1) and (2) of Act 759.

D. The Court erred in law when it stated that the option opened to the applicant is provided under section 59(7) of Act 759 particularly more so that the