An Accra High Court (Commercial Division) presided over by Justice Constant K. Hometowu has dismissed a contempt application filed against some seven individuals allegedly connected to the enstoolment of King Adam Latse II.
The seven individuals are Emmanuel Nii Tartey Tackie-Yaoboi, Hon. Jonathan Tackie Komey Lomoko, Nii Nabi Anyah Tackie-Yaoboi, Henry Ayi Addo, David Tackie Komey Lomoko, aka Davis, Nii Ayittey Osu, aka Jonathan Nii Teiko Quaye, and Joseph Yaya Addy, aka Yaya Addy.
The application for committal for contempt was filed by one Nii Dr Tetteh Kwei II, who claimed that the above mentioned persons’ conduct and behaviour show gross, unimaginable and unmitigated disrespect for the processes of the court and without doubt constitute contempt of court.
The respondents in a rebuttal, argued that the case being brought against them, concerned chieftaincy, which the court in question lacks jurisdiction to entertain.
The judge in this regard, indicated that he is convinced that the matter before him borders on chieftaincy, adding that it has to do with the enstoolment and destoolment of chiefs within the Ga Paramountcy.
He also added that the alleged wrongful conduct of respondents is a direct result of dissatisfaction or otherwise with the enstoolment of chiefs within the Ga Traditional Area and equally falls within the definition of cause or matter affecting chieftaincy as provided for in the Chieftaincy Act 2008, Act759.
In this respect, Nii Dr Tetteh Kwei II is not clothed with the capacity to bring such an action before the court.
According to him, the matter is not properly before his court and, therefore, granted the preliminary legal objection challenging not only the capacity of applicant to bring the matter before the court but also the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain same.
“I dismiss the instant application for an order of contempt of court in limine” he said. And, awarded an amount GH¢21,000 cost in favour of respondents.
Full ruling of the court:
On June 2, 2020, Counsel for the Applicant filed the instant motion on notice for an order for committal of contempt of court, pursuant to order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2014, CI 47.
The affidavit in support of the application is a litany of allegation levelled against the respondents, severally and jointly, in a consolidated petition challenging the installation of king Tackie Tawiah III as Ga Mantse, following the demise on 10th December 2004, of the then Ga Mantse, Boni Nii Amugi Soose II.
In all, six suits were instituted before the Judicial Committee of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs, Dodowa, challenging the installation of King Tackie Tawiah III, known in private life as Dr Joe Blankson.
In pursuit of the challenge, the respondents filed, before the Judicial Committee of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs, motion on notice for an Interlocutory Order of Injunction, seeking to restrain King Tackie Tawiah II from performing the duties and functions of Ga Mantse. The said motion was dismissed on July 18, 2008.
Thereafter, a plethora of suits were filed before the Judicial Committee of Greater Accra Region, leading to the issuance of rulings by the latter, among which, for instance, Nii Yaote Oto-Ga was restrained from holding himself out as the Ga Paramount Stool Dzasetse. Again, all the Defendants were restrained by themselves, their agents, servants, privies and assigns from interfering with the Ga Paramount Stool Dzasetse’s functions and duties.
The affidavit in support of the instant application states further, among others, that the respondents “on the 11th day of June 2011, uncustomary and unlawfully broke into the Ga Paramount Stool House at Tunma We, Abola-Accra, and purports to have undertaken Nii Tackie Adama Latse II through an installation ceremony as Ga Mantse…
Deponent further alleged that the conduct and behaviour of the respondents as an exhibition gross, unimaginable and unmitigated disrespect for the processes of the Honourable Court and without doubt contempt of court.
Deponent prayed the court to impose custodial sentence on the respondents as the only appropriate punishment for their contumelious behaviour in addition to any other punishment that the Honourable Court would impose on them.
On 23rd June, 2020 Counsel for fourth and sixth respondents filed a notice of the preliminary legal objection, notifying the parties that he will raise the following questions of preliminary points of law:
- Having regard to the fact that applicants motion is granted on cases to which he is no party, whether applicants has capacity to maintain the instant application for contempt of court and whether the said applicant’s application is not incompetent and dismissible in limine and;
- Having regard to the fact that the applicants motion is grounded on cases that have been determined and on Acts that have occurred about a decade ago, whether the solution is not brought out of time.
On July 3rd, 2020 the court directed the respondents to file a written submission within one week, i.e., on or before July 10, 2020.
The court further directed counsel for the applicants to fill her written response on or before July 17, 2020.
On 15th July, 2020 Counsel for the 4th and 6th respondents filed his written address, albeit belatedly.
Similarly, on July 13, 2020 Counsel for the1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th respondents also filed his submissions on preliminary objection he raised, relating to the propriety of the instant application and the jurisdiction of this court to hear the instant application.
The gravamen of the submissions filed by Counsel for the respondents is primarily that the application is not properly before this court because it is a matter affecting chieftaincy. Being a matter affecting chieftaincy, this court, Counsel submitted, has no jurisdiction to entertain same.
In support of this argument, Counsel for respondents referred the court to the Supreme Court case of the Republic vrs High Court, Accra, Ex parte, in Nii Agyemankese II, Nii Dodoo Nsaki and 4 others – interested parties: Civil Motion J5/1/2019 dated February 2019: Nii Tetteh Kwei II & 5 other vrs George Tackie & 16 others; Suit No BMISC 862/2015; The Republic vrs High Courts human rights division, Ex parte King Tackie Latse II; Civil Motion No. J5/33/2020.
The relevance of all these cases is that the Supreme Court ordered that the High Court rulings and orders in the form of injunction, mandamus and contempt, all being cases relating to the Ga Paramountcy, be quashed and same were quashed accordingly.
The rationale for quashing the orders of the High Court is that the matter related to chiefs, which the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain. The appropriate protection for the determination of this matter is the Judicial Committee of the House of Chiefs.
Again, Counsel referred the court to the case of the Republic vrs High Court, Kumasi & others; Ex Parte Fosuhene (1989-90) 2 GLR 315, where the Supreme Court made a determination that an individual’s applicant was precluded from filing a motion for contempt of court against a contemnor cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
Cancel for the respondent submitted that applicant lacks capacity to bring the instant application for determination in this forum. As such, the applicant should be dismissed as limine, without delving into the merits.
In her written address filed on July 27, 2020, Counsel for the Applicant argued most forcefully that the issue does not relate to cause or matter affecting chieftaincy, it is the contacts of the respondents that’s the issue. In support of this argument Counsel provided the definition of course of matter that affected chieftaincy as section 76 of the chieftaincy Act 20 08 at 759 which says of cause, matter, question or dispute relating to:
- Denomination, election, appointment, installation of a person to be nominated elected or installed as a chief or
- The disturbance or addiction of a chief; or
- The right of a person to be take part in the nomination election appointments or installation of a person and cities or in the students or an application or
- The constitutional relations under customary law between chiefs.
She concluded that all the plenary legal objections raised by counsel for the respondents have no legal standing and should be dismissed.
The court takes a serious view of the application before it. It is, therefore, resorted to jurisprudence as a means of resolving the issue.
The courts place heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in the high court cases on injunction, mandamus and contempt orders and notes that in the Nii Agyemankese II case, the Apex Court ordered that the decision be brought up for the purposes of being quashed.
As said earlier the reason for this decision is that the high Court that still have jurisdiction in cause or matter affecting chieftaincy
Counsel for the applicant argued that the instant matter does not relate to cause or matter affected chieftaincy.
I beg to differ. The definition provided by Counsel informs me that the alleged behaviour of the Respondents is a direct result of their dissatisfaction with the ruling of the Judicial Council of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs. It is also a demonstration of their dissatisfaction with matters relating to installation of Applicant as Ga Mantse, which is a cause or matter relating to chieftaincy.
In his book ‘Handbook on enforcement of judgements (Practice and procedure in Ghana)” at page 129, Derrick Adu-Gyamfi, Esq., referred to the case of the Republic vs Omanhene of Ahanta Traditional Area: Ex Parte Korkor, where the petitioner in the chieftaincy suit pending before a Judicial Committee of the Ahanta Traditional Council filed a contempt application at the High Court, Sekondi, against the respondents that petition for outdooring the candidate in dispute during the pendency of that suit.
The High Court Judge, in dismissing the contempt application said:
‘It is clear from regulation 13 (5) of LI798 that the precondition necessary for the High Court assuming jurisdiction to enquire into the cases of contempt of a traditional council acting in their judicial capacity is a certificate of an alleged contempt submitted to the High Court by the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council concerned. Where no such certificate is submitted the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain allegations of contempt of a traditional council acting in its judicial capacity… The applicants in this case are not the judicial committee of the Ahanta Traditional Council…I would, therefore, dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction”.
Similarly, section 33 (7) and (8) of the Chieftaincy Act, Act 2008 provides that:
“(7), a person who does anything in relation to the exercise of the judicial function of the National House or Regional House which, if done in relation to the High Court, will constitute a contempt of that court commits contempt of that House.
(8) Where it appears to a Judicial Committee that a person has committed contempt of the House of Chiefs, it shall certify that facts to the High Court, which if it is satisfied that the person has committed contempt, shall take steps for the punishment of the person in contempt or shall, otherwise, acquit the person.”
I am convinced that the matter before this court is cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. It has to do with the enstoolment and destoolment of Chiefs within the Ga Paramountcy. The alleged wrongful conduct of respondent is a direct result of dissatisfaction or, otherwise, with the enstoolment of chiefs within the traditional area.
And, this falls squarely within the definition of cause or matter affecting chieftaincy as provided for in the Chieftaincy Act 2008, Act759. That being the case, Applicant is not clothed with the capacity to bring such an action before this court.
I rule that the matter is not properly before this court and I grant the preliminary legal objection challenging not only the capacity of Applicant to bring this matter before the court but also the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain same. I dismiss the instant application for an order of contempt of court in limine.
I award cost of Ghana Cedis 3000 each in favour of Respondents.
Justice Constant K. Hometowu, Justice of the High Court.
The post Court dismisses contempt charges against Adama Latse II appeared first on The Chronicle Online.
Read Full Story
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Instagram
Google+
YouTube
LinkedIn
RSS