Saahene v Tenten II and National House Of Chiefs (BE/TN/HC/E12/21/2025) [2025] GHAHC 200 (30 May 2025)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT TECHIMAN ON FRIDAY THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2025,BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWAMEGYAMFI OSEI SUITNO:BE/TN/HC/E12/21/2025 MATHEWSAAHENE :PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT VRS NANA KWADWOTENTENII :1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT NATIONAL HOUSEOF CHIEFS :2ND DEFENDANT RU L IN G The Plaintiff caused a writ to be issued out of the registry of this court claiming the following reliefs “1.A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not Odikro or Chief of New Longoro in theBono East RegionofGhana 2.A declaration that the purported enstoolment of the 1st Defendant as Odikro or ChiefofNew Longorois null and voidand has no legaleffect 1 3.An order setting aside the Gazette or Entry of the name of the 1st Defendant in the Register of the National Register of Chiefs as Odikro of New Longoro dated 22-12-2021 4.An order directed to the 2nd Defendant to expunge the name of the 1st Defendant fromthe NationalRegister ofChiefs asOdikro ofNewLongoro 5.Generaldamages 6. An order for perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from holding himself out or styling himself as Odikro or Chief of New Longoro in the Bono East Region. 7.Costsemanating fromthe suit including Plaintiff’slawyer’slegalfees.” The 1st Defendant/Applicant upon service has brought the present motion for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds that same is a Cause or Matter affecting chieftaincy and for want of jurisdiction. Arguing the motion is was contended that having regards to the reliefs sought the suit is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The case of In Re Nungua Chieftaincy Affairs, Nii Odai Ayiku IV v. Attorney General & Wor Nii Bortelabi Borketey Laweh XIV [2010] SCGLR 413 was referenced for the proposition that the matter cannot be resolved without evidence being led on how the Applicant was enstooled thereby making it a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which this court lacks jurisdiction. The case of THE REPUBLIC VS. THE HIGH COURT KOFORIDUA; 2 EXPARTE OTUTU KONO III ; AKUAPEM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL [Civil Motion j5/9/2008, delivered on the 22nd of October 2008 was also cited for the same proposition. It was finally contended that the proper forum is the Traditional Council hence this courtshould decline jurisdictionand dismiss the suit. The Plaintiff/Respondent is not amused with the position taken by the Applicant and contends that the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and lower adjudicating authorities which includes the 2nd Defendant hence is clothed with the jurisdiction to set aside the gazette issued to the Applicant by the 2nd Defendant. It was further contended that the reliefs sought are not causes or matters affecting Chieftaincy as stipulated under Section 76 of the Chieftaincy Act 2008 [Act 759]. He further claimed that Relief 3 is the substantive relief and same does not fall under a cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy. According to counsel gazette was obtained fraudulently and this courtisclothed with thejurisdiction to gointoit. The Chieftaincy Act, 2008 [Act 759] defines a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy as follows; "Cause or matter affecting chieftaincy" means a cause, matter, question or dispute relating toany ofthe following 3 (a) the nomination, election, selection or installation of a person as a chief or the claim of a person to be nominated, elected, selected or installed as a chief, (b) the deposition orabdicationofa chief, (c) the right of a person to take part in the nomination, election, selection or installationofapersonas achief orin the depositionofachief, (d) the recovery or delivery of stool property in connection with the nomination, election, selection, installation, deposition orabdicationofachief, and (e)the constitutional relationsunder customarylawbetween chiefs; "deposition" meansdestoolment ordeskinment; A look at the reliefs 1 and 2 claimed by the Plaintiff/Respondent show that he wants the enstoolment of the Applicant nullified. If the two reliefs fail the other reliefs cannot succeed. Therefore the two reliefs are the dominant or substantive reliefs whilst the remaining reliefs are the consequential or incidental reliefs. There is no doubt that reliefs 1 and 2 are causes or matters affecting Chieftaincy. One of the tests for determining whether a matter is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy was laid down by the venerable jurist Justice S.A. Brobbey in his book THE LAW OF CHIEFTAINCY INGHANA at page232 wherehe statedas follows “if evidence on how the party was nominated, elected, selected, enstooled or enskinned, deposed or abdicated has to be adduced before the issue raised in the case can be 4 determined, then the case is almost certainly a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. This is because the statutorily prescribed method and procedure for adducing such evidence is by applying L.I. 798 or C. I. 27.Only tranditional councils can apply 789 and only Regional houses of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs can apply CI 27. Neither CI47 (for High Courts and CircuitCourts) nor Cap 4( for Districtcourts) can be used to adduce such evidence.” This test has beencited with approvalin the case ofIN Re Nungua Chieftaincy Affairs, Nii Odai Ayiku IV v. Attorney General & Wor Nii Bortelabi Borketey Laweh Xiv [2010] SCGLR 413 and the case of THE REPUBLIC VS. THE HIGH COURT KOFORIDUA; EXPARTE OTUTU KONO III ; AKUAPEM TRADITIONAL COUNCIL(supra) Professor Tawiah Modibo Ocran JSC, expounded on what constituted a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy in the case of In Re Oguaa Paramount Stool; Garbrah & Others v. Central Regional House of Chiefs & Haizel [2005-2006] SCGLR 193 as follows at page 214thus: “It appears from the language of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971, that the litmus test for determining whether an issue is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is the existence of a question or dispute or contested matter, or a cause in the sense of a justiciable controversy with respect to any of the matters listed therein and not literally in respect of 5 every matter bearing on chieftaincy. I hold that in the instant complaint even though relating to a chief and bearing upon the formalities for the public acknowledgment of a chief, does not constitute a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy within the meaning of section 66 of Act 370 because it did not raise an actual challenge to the nomination, election, appointment and installation of a person as a chief, or his/her destoolment or the right of participation in such decision-making or ceremony.”(emphasismine) Clearly, if a cause or matter raises an actual challenge to the nomination, election, appointment and installation of a person as a chief, that cause or matter is one that affects chieftaincy and is notsubject tothe originaljurisdiction oftheCourts. As I have indicated supra reliefs 1 and 2 have raised a real challenge to the enstoolment of the Applicant as the Chief of New Longoro, and thereby an actual challenge to the nomination, election, appointment and installation of a person as a chief, the matter is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy despite, and this Court shall decline jurisdiction and set aside the writ. I makeno orderastocost. (SGD) JUSTICEKWAMEGYAMFI OSEI JUSTICEOF THE HIGH COURT TECHIMAN 6 COUNSEL: FELIXAKOSAHYEBOAHESQLEDBYFREMPONG BOAMAHESQ FORDEFENDANT/APPLICANT KWASI OPOKU ESQ. FORPLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT 7