Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:09:41.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chieftaincy jurisdication and the muddle of constitutional interpretation in Ghana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

A. K. P. Kludze
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Supreme Court of Ghana, in The Ghana Bar Association v. The Attorney General, has unanimously decided that, even under the 1992 Constitution, High Court and the Court of Appeal have no jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. Even if this decision itself is correct, it is nevertheless premised on highly questionable legal propositions and dicta which strike at the foundations of several otherwise settled principles and canons of construction.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , Spring 1998 , pp. 37 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Unreported, Writ No. 14/93, Supreme Court, Accra, 7 February, 1995

2 Act 370.

3 Act 459.

4 Abban, Amua-Sekyi and Bamford-Addo, JJ.S.C. The opinion of Hayfron-Benjamin, J.S.C., was based entirely on the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution. KPEGAH, J.S.C., in a rather lengthy judgment, did not address the merits, because he held that the Plaintiff Bar Association lacked the locus standi to institute the action.

5 Article 140(1).

6 Italics supplied.

7 Act 370.

8 Act 459.

9 Unreported, Civil Motion No. 15/94, Supreme Court, Accra, 20 December, 1994

10 E.g. Tobah v. Kweikuma [1981] G.L.R. 648, C.A.Google Scholar

11 It is conceded that a transitional provision can be endowed with the attribute of permanence. For instance, indemnity granted to military dictators and their collaborators for murders, assassinations, illegal executions, tortures, unlawful imprisonments, and other atrocities and injustices perpetrated or committed against innocent citizens, as in s. 34(1) of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution, and s. 15 of the Transitional Provisions of the 1979 Constitution, are permanent.

12 Whitman v. Sadler [1910] A.C. 514, 517.Google Scholar

13 Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass. In the dialogue in “Humpty Dumpty”, Humpty said “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less”. To this, Alice righdy retorted, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things”. Can “all” mean “less than all”?

14 By virtue of Article 129(2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution.

15 Per Reid, Lord in Pinner v. Everett [1969] 3 All E.R. 257, 258.Google Scholar See also Attorney-General v. Lockwood (1842) 9 M. & W. 378, 398Google Scholar; 152 E.R. 160, 168 (per Alderson, B.); and per Tindal, C.J., in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl. & F. 85;Google Scholar 8 E.R. 1034.

16 R v. Oakes [1959] 2 Q.B. 350.Google Scholar

17 Jones v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] A.C. 635, 668.Google Scholar

18 R v. City of London Court Judge [1892] 1 Q.B. 273, 290.Google Scholar

19 Salomon v. Salomon [1897] A.C. 22, 38.Google Scholar

20 Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1950] 2 All E.R. 1226, 1236.Google Scholar

21 Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R. 839, 841; [1952] A. C. 189, 191.Google Scholar

22 Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1950] 2 All E.R. 1226, 1236; [1952] A.C. 189, 192.Google Scholar

23 Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R. 839, 847.Google Scholar

24 Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R. 839, 841; [1952] A.C. 189, 191.Google Scholar

25 Mersey Docks v. Henderson (1888 ) 13 App. Cas. 595, 602.Google Scholar

26 Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 6 Moore P.C. 1,8,9; 13 E.R. 582, 585.Google Scholar

27 See, e.g., Magor & St. Meltons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1952] A.C. 189; [1951] 2 All E.R. 839;Google ScholarGuynne v. Bumell (1840) 7 Cl. & F. 572, 696; 7 E. R. 1188, 1233;Google ScholarFisher v. Bell [1961] 1 Q.B. 394;Google ScholarNorth Eastern Railway v. Leadgak (1870) L.R. 5 Q, B. 157, 161;Google ScholarR v. Dyott (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 47, 51.Google Scholar

28 Oram v. Breary (1877) 2 Ex. D. 346, 348.Google Scholar

29 Goldsack v. Shore [1950] 1 K.B. 708, 713, C.A.Google Scholar

30 R v. Abbott (1780) 2 Doug. 553, 555; 99 E.R. 349, 352. See also Goldsack v. Shore, above.Google Scholar

31 See Art. 129 of the 1992 Constitution.

32 Pyx Granite Co., Ltd v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1960] A.C. 260, 286; [1959] 3 All E.R. 1, 6.Google Scholar

33 Per McNair, J., in rewsley, Francis v. & Drayton, West U.D.C. [1957] 2 Q.B. 136; [1957] E.R. 825.Google Scholar

34 Commissioner of Customs of Excise v. Cure & Deeley Ltd, [1962] 1 Q.B. 340, 357.Google Scholar

35 Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 Q.B. 329, 354.Google Scholar

36 Smith v. East Elloe R.D.C. [1956] A.C. 736, 750.Google Scholar

37 Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, London, 12th ed., 1969, 153Google Scholar

38 10 & 11 Geo. 6, c.51.

39 [1960] A.C. 260; [1959] 3 All E.R. 1; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 346.

40 (1849) 14 Q.B. 122;Google Scholar 177 E.R. 49.

41 See, e.g., Salomon v. Salomon [1987] A.C. 22, 38Google Scholar and Magor & St. Mellons R.D.C. v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All E.R. 839, 841, 847.Google Scholar

42 Ollennu, N.A., “The case for Traditional Courts under the Constitution”, (1970) 7 U.G.L.J. 82, 101.Google Scholar

43 See Ollennu, N.A., “Chieftaincy under the law”, in Ekow-Daniels, W.C. and Woodman, G.R. (eds.), Essays in Ghanaian Law, Legon, 1976, 38, 50.Google Scholar

44 See Republic v. Kumasi Traditional Council; ex park Nona Kofi Dei [1973] 2 G.L.R. 73, 86–87.Google Scholar

45 Ordinance No. 4 of 1876.

46 No. 5 of 1883.

47 No. 18 of 1927 (later cap. 4 of the 1936 ed. of Laws of the Gold Coast).

48 (1914) P.C. ‘74-’28,37.

49 (1926) F.C. ‘26-’29,165.

50 (1920) F.C. 1920–21, p.130.

51 (1922) P.C. 1924–28, p.57.

52 (1877) Sar. F.L.R. 42.

53 (1890) Sar. F.L.R. 48.

54 (1916) D. &F. 1911–1916, p.97.

55 No. 7 of 1935 (later cap. 4 of the 1936 and 1951 editions of Laws of the Gold Coast).

56 Republic v. High Court, Koforidua; ex park Nana Aninakwa Bonsu Nyame and Another, Unreported, Civil Motion No. 15/94, Supreme Court, Accra, 20 December, 1994.

57 Per Dankwerts, L.J., in Artemiou v. Procopion [1966] 1 Q.B. 878, 888.Google Scholar