Osu land Case judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, GHANA, HELD IN ACCRA ON MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2008, BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE E. F. DZAKPASU

SUIT NO. BMISC.749/2007 THE REPUBLIC VRS.

1. NIl AKO NORTEI IV

2. NII NORTEY OMABOE III

3. NII SABAN ATSEN VI

4. NUUMO NARKU AGBETI

5. MICHAEL OKWEI DOWUONA

6. LAWRENCE QUIST EX-PARTE: NII NORTEY OWUO III RULING: This is an application for a joint and several order of Committal of the Respondents for their contempt of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively in respect of:-

1. The judgment of the Appeal Court dated 18th February 2005 in Civil Appeal No. H1/210/2004 entitled: Osu Stool Ag per its Lawful Attorney Nii Ako Nortei IV, Mankralo of Osu Vrs. Unilever Ghana Limited.

2. The judgment of the Supreme Court dated 17th May, 2006 in Civil Appeal No. J4/2/2006 on the Mankralo’s appeal from the said judgment of the Appeal Court.

The facts are that from the 29th December, 1984 to 15th August, 1986, the Applicant reigned as the Osu Mantse. However, from the 15th August, 1986, a storm formed over the horizon of the stool House challenging the legal status of the Applicant as Osu Mantse. This storm was formed by the Government's notice of withdrawal of its recognition from the Applicant as Osu Mantse and published in the Local Government Bulletin of the Ghana Gazette. In the milieu of the storm, the Osu Stool purportedly acting per its

Lawful Attorney Nii Ako Nortei IV, Mankralo of Osu and 1st Respondent herein, instituted an action for the recovery of possession of three (3) Osu - Stool properties and further consequential orders against the Unilever Ghana Limited.

The Applicant intervened in the action in the High Court, Accra claiming to be the incumbent Osu Mantse and hence the person exclusively entitled to represent the Osu Stool as against the Defendant Unilever Ghana Limited, and therefore that he (Applicant) should be substituted for the Mankralo as the Representative of the Osu Stool. The Mankralo resisted the substitution, relying entirely on the Government's withdrawal of recognition from the Applicant as Osu Mantse as effectively destooling the Applicant and thereby rendering the Osu Stool vacant with effect from the date of the said withdrawal of recognition from Applicant. The High Court ruled in favour of the Osu Mankralo and declared the Osu Stool vacant by the operation of the said Government withdrawal of recognition.

The Applicant appealed against the decision of the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal when it decided that the High Court was in error when it declared the Osu Stool vacant by virtue of the Government withdrawal of recognition from Applicant, and was also in error when it blessed the Mankralo as Ag. Osu Mantse. (See Exhibits NNO.3 attached to Applicant's affidavit in support).

The Court of Appeal accordingly set aside the decision of the High Court. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Court of Appeal, the Mankralo appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court the Mankralo sought to adduce fresh evidence that the Applicant's name had been struck out from the National Registrar of Chiefs on the grounds of the withdrawal of Government recognition from the Applicant.

The Supreme Court summarily dismissed that application as irrelevant and ineffective against the customary status of the Applicant as a Chief. In the final judgment, the Supreme Court decided dismissing the Mankralo's appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal (See Exhibit NNO.6 attached to Applicant's affidavit in support.)

The media made sure to disseminate the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court for the benefit of the Osu Citizenry in particular, and the general reading public at large.

Then the Mankralo sued out a fresh Writ in Suit No. BL.528/2006 entitled:- NIl AKO NORTEI IV (Osu Mankralo and Head of Osu Traditional Council) vrs.

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF STOOL LANDS & 2 ORS.

Next, and but for the ruling in intervention of Lartey- Young J. dated the 16th March, 2007 the 1st and 6th Respondents attempted to seal up Applicant's Palace on the strength of an Interim Injunction Order of the Appellate Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs at Dodowa which purported to remove Applicant's status as Osu Mantse and the 3rd Respondent was expected to collect the Keys to the Palace. (See Exhibits NNO. 9 - 12 attached to Applicant's affidavit in support). In the matters that transpired, the 5th Respondent was enstooled as new Osu Mantse as publicly announced in the news media by the 6th Respondent. (See Exhibits NNO.I & 3 attached to Applicant's affidavit In support). Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Applicant contends that the Respondents were the principal architects or participants in the enstoolment of the 5th Respondent and that they did so in contempt of the orders of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. What is the meaning of the decision of the Court of Appeal as confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court? Clearly the decisions objectively mean that the 'withdrawal of Government recognition did not operate to destool the Applicant, and therefore that the Osu Stool was not vacant by the force of Government withdrawal of recognition of its occupant, excepting that the Applicant was restricted from performing certain statutory functions distinct from his original traditional functions.

The 1st, 4th and 6th Respondents argued that it is the Kingmakers who install Chiefs and that they are not the Kingmakers and therefore did not install the 5th Respondent. They submitted that the installation of the 5th Respondent was not unlawful and void or constitutes contempt of Court as alleged. They submitted also that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in Chieftaincy matters. In respect of their last submission, I find that the Respondents voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts and have not since juridically challenged the said jurisdiction and cannot now be heard to challenge that jurisdiction.

By the various acts complained the 15t Respondent has clearly acted in contravention of the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the matter.

Apart from being the principal members of the Osu Stool family, I am not satisfied with evidence of the roles that the other Respondents were alleged to have played in the installation of the 5th Respondent. As for 5th Respondent, he explained that he was caught by force and installed Chief. It is difficult for me to dismiss his defence literally or summarily, taking judicial notice of the fact of that mode of installation of Chief as obtains sometimes in our traditions. This application was prosecuted with such vehemence and passion not really supported by evidence.

With the exception of the 15t Respondent whose actions I find to be disobedient to the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the matter, and therefore liable in Contempt and accordingly committed, I find the other Respondents not liable, and accordingly acquit and discharge them – i.e. the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents.

SENTENCE: The 1st Respondent is sentenced to a fine of GH¢5,000.00 to be paid within two (2) days inclusive of today or in default fourteen (14) days imprisonment. In the meantime, he shall be admitted to a self recognizance bail of GH¢ 1 0,000.00 to report on 4th June, 2008. There shall be cost of GH¢500.00 to the Applicant.