The Republic Vrs 1. The President National House Of Chiefs, Kumasi & 5 Ors [2021] GHASC 155 (24 March 2021)

The Republic Vrs 1. The President National House Of Chiefs, Kumasi & 5 Ors [2021] GHASC 155 (24 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the applicants had sufficient interest and capacity to seek mandamus, the High Court had supervisory jurisdiction over the administrative acts of the National House of Chiefs, and the irregular and procedurally improper registration of the Appellant's name justified the order for removal by mandamus. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 155
Parties
1st Applicant/respondent/respondent: Nana Amoa VII (a.k.a Joseph Kweku Arthur, substituted by Nana Amoa VIII a.k.a Philip Bright Mensah); 2nd Applicant/respondent/respondent: Nana Okom Egua; 3rd Applicant/respondent/respondent: Nana Eduaful (Head of Royal Ebiradze No.1 Family of Amosima); 1st Respondent/appellant: The President, National House of Chiefs; 2nd Respondent/appellant: The Registrar, National House of Chiefs; Interested Party/appellant/appellant: Nana Amoah VII (a.k.a Kweku Banyin)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandamus, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Capacity to Sue, Fraud in Public Records, Chieftaincy Registration
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Chieftaincy Law Mandamus Supervisory Jurisdiction Capacity to Sue Fraud in Public Records Chieftaincy Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nana Amoa VII (a.k.a Joseph Kweku Arthur, substituted by Nana Amoa VIII a.k.a Philip Bright Mensah)

1st Applicant/respondent/respondent

Nana Okom Egua

2nd Applicant/respondent/respondent

Nana Eduaful (Head of Royal Ebiradze No.1 Family of Amosima)

3rd Applicant/respondent/respondent

The President, National House of Chiefs

1st Respondent/appellant

The Registrar, National House of Chiefs

2nd Respondent/appellant

Nana Amoah VII (a.k.a Kweku Banyin)

Interested Party/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had capacity to bring the application for mandamus
  2. 2 Whether the removal of a chief's name from the National Register of Chiefs is amenable to mandamus
  3. 3 Whether the High Court had supervisory jurisdiction over the administrative acts of the National House of Chiefs

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicants had sufficient interest and capacity to seek mandamus, the High Court had supervisory jurisdiction over the administrative acts of the National House of Chiefs, and the irregular and procedurally improper registration of the Appellant's name justified the order for removal by mandamus. The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is wholly dismissed.
  • The orders of the High Court and Court of Appeal for removal of the Appellant's name from the National Register of Chiefs are affirmed.