SUPREME COURT DISMISSES GBESE SUIT

THE Supreme Court has dismissed a motion filed by Nii Tetteh Ahinakwa II and Nii Ayi Bonte II, known in private life as Thomas Okine, of the Akwetey Krobo Saki We of Gbese for a judicial review of an Accra High Court decision in favour of Nii Okaidja III (Bill Annan), the Gbese Mantse, and two others.
The court unanimously ruled that where the decision of the lower court was regularly given, judicial review by the Supreme Court was misplaced and that if the applicants were dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, they ought to have appealed, rather than go to the Supreme Court.
It awarded costs of GH¢1,000 against the applicants.
The applicants invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to set aside the High Court ruling of September 26, 2007, award damages and an order of perpetual injunction against Nii Okaidja, Percy Okoe and Okoe Aryee, the interested parties.
However, Nii Okaidja and the others raised a preliminary objection to the motion.
The grounds for the review by the applicants were that the lower court was not clothed with jurisdiction to entertain the matter and, therefore, the judge ought to have struck it out because Nii Okaidja and the others had no locus standi, while there were a series of estoppel and contempt cases against them.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that those were not known grounds for review, although judicial review was one method by which the court exercised the power granted it by the Constitution to ensure that the lower courts were within the powers conferred on them.
According to the court, the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the issue raised in the matter that was brought before it.
The Supreme Court said the remedy of judicial review was not open to the applicants and cited many cases to outline the scope of its jurisdiction.
It said although it had jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters, that was the final appellate court regarding those matters and for that reason it upheld the preliminary objection raised by Nii Okaidja and the others.
The court was presided over by Justice Sophia Akuffo, with Justices Julius Ansah, Richard Twum Aninakwa, Sophia Adinyira and S.K. Asiamah as the members.
The Gbese chieftaincy dispute took a new twist following an Accra High Court order on Monday, January 21, 2008 that Nii Okaidja III should take possession of the Gbese palace by 6.05 p.m. that day.
The court restrained Nii Tetteh Ahinakwa II and Nii Ayi Bonte II from interfering with the possession, control and right of occupation of the palace so long as Nii Okaidja remained the Gbese Mantse.
It ordered them to vacate the Gbese palace by 6.00 p.m. on Monday and awarded costs of GH¢500 in favour of the plaintiffs.
The court gave the order in its judgement in the case in which Nii Okaidja and two others sued Nii Ahinakwa and Thomas Okine and sought an order to set aside the writ of possession of the High Court pursuant to leave granted by the court on May 22, 2007 because it was illegal and unlawful.
The plaintiffs also sought for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from entering the Gbese palace or in any way interfere with the possession, control and right of occupation of the palace.
The defendants, however, described the judgement as unfortunate because the plaintiffs had no locus in taking over the palace.
A source close to the plaintiffs hinted that an application for a stay of execution pending appeal in the matter had been filed, since there had been a Supreme Court ruling in their favour, while a contempt case was also pending against the plaintiffs.
According to the court, by the terms of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs on February 17, 2003, it was the one who became the Gbese chief who should be entitled to all immovable property of the stool, and having found Nii Okaidja to have established his status as the Gbese chief, he was the one and only person entitled to the Gbese palace, so long as he remained the chief.
The court held that throughout the trial no evidence was brought to show that any elder of Gbese, the king makers or any person from the Dzaase had instituted any destoolment proceeding against Nii Okaidja in any legally recognised or competent chieftaincy tribunal and procured any adverse findings that Nii Okaidja was liable to be destooled.
“Is it not a disturbing state of condition, indeed an awkward unintended arrangement, that while Nii Okaidja remains the functional Gbese Mantse, the functional tools of the office of the Gbese chief should be under the control of an opponent by his occupation of the Gbese stool?” the court queried.
It said it did not think the legal objections raised against the plaintiffs had enough potency to gag especially Nii Okaidja from instituting the action in the court and, therefore, did not see the circumstances under which to deny him the right to take the action.
The court said Nii Okaidja had pleaded that he was installed Gbese Mantse by the king makers and the Dzaase of Gbese on October 8, 2006 and led evidence to fortify that averment without any challenge from the defendants.
It said the judgement being relied on against Nii Okaidja predated his installation as chief of Gbese, while it had never come across the mention of Nii Okaidja as party to any of the matters in the courts over the past years.