THE REPUBLIC v. THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS PER THE PRESIDENT, KUMASI & ORS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HONYENUGA, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- GYAN, J.A.
- SUURBAAREH, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved an appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing an application for Judicial Review aiming to quash the National House of Chiefs' entry of the appellant's name into the National Register of Chiefs. The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the entry, being an administrative act, was not subject to certiorari. Upon review, it was determined that the trial judge erred in considering a purely administrative act as amenable to certiorari. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's ruling was set aside.
HONYENUGA, J.A.This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Cape Coast dated the 14th day of February, 2008 which dismissed an application for Judicial Review in the nature of certiorari and prohibition to quash the decision of the 1st and 2nd respondents for having entered the name of the Interested Party/Appellant into the Register of the National House of Chiefs and for a further order restraining him from holding himself as the Odikro of Pedu.
The Interested party/appellant would be simply referred to as the appellant and the respondents and the applicant/respondent as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents respectively. The facts of this appeal were that the 4th respondent per his lawful attorney John Darko Otoo who was later substituted for the 4th respondent filed a motion on notice under Order 55 Rule 1 of C. I. 47,for an order of Judicial Review to quash by certiorari and prohibition, the decision of the 1st respondent to enter the name of the appellant into the National Register of Chiefs which matter had been pending before the 3rd respondent.
When the appellant had notice of the entry of the appellants name through a search conducted at the registry of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent caused his Lawyers to write a letter drawing the attention of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd 4th respondent caused their Lawyer to write another letter to have the name of the appellant removed from the National Register of Chiefs but to no avail.Upon hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial judge granted the application and ordered the 1st respondent to remove the name of the appellant from the National Register of Chiefs and further prohibited him from holding himself up as the Odikro of Pedu.Aggrieved by the decision of the trial judge, V.G.K. Ayimey J, the appellant filed the instant appeal based on the following grounds:-.
a) That the ruling is against the weight of affidavit evidence adduced at the trial.b) That the learned trial judge erred in finding that entering a name in the register of chiefs (a purely administrative process)was amenable to the writ of certiorari.c) That the learned trial judge erred in [not] finding that the applicant/respondent not having filed the process within 6 months of the event complained about and not having sought any extension of time to institute the application, same was not properly before the court, having offended against Order 55 Rule 3 of C. I. 47.d) That the learned trial judge erred in not f