S v Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council (H1/68/2026) [2026] GHACA 5 (30 July 2026)

THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA, 2026

Coram

JENNIFER A. DODOO, J.A (PRESIDING) STEPHEN OPPONG, J.A FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A

SUIT NO: H1/68/2026 30TH JULY 2026

THE REPUBLIC

VERSUS

Ngleshie Alata Traditional

COUNCIL ---------------- RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

EX PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE ------------- APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

NII AMAAH KWAOFIO ------------ INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT

Judgment

THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 2 FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A:

1.0 General Overview This appeal arises from the decision of the High Court (Human Rights Division) dated 13/05/2022. Statutory compliance is strictly non-negotiable. In the case of Network Computer System Ltd v. Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 218, Atuguba, JSC delivered at 230 as follows:

“A court cannot shut its eyes to the violation of a statute as that would be very contrary to its raison d'etre. If a court can suo motu take up the question of illegality even on mere public policy grounds, I do not see how it can fail to take up illegality arising from statutory infraction which has duly come to its notice.''

2.1 Applicant/Respondent Case (“Respondent”) On 14/09/2021, the Respondent caused his lawyers to file a Motion on Notice seeking judicial review by way of certiorari of the decision by the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council (the Respondent therein) electing Nii Amaah Kwaofio as Acting President, who is the Interested Party and Appellant in this case , on 06/07/2021. The Applicant prayed for a certiorari order to quash the decision on the following grounds: a. Excess or lack of jurisdiction. b. Error apparent on the face of the record.

In the affidavit in support of the application filed on 14/09/2021 and supplementary affidavit in reply to the Appellant’s affidavit in opposition filed on 26/11/2021, which were both deposed to by the Respondent himself, Nii Aryeequaye VI Ngleshie Adadentam Mantse, he stated that he was installed as a Sub-Divisional Chief on 02/10/2004. He further deposed that he was gazetted and his name appeared in the National Register of Chiefs after approval on THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 3 16/07/2014. In contrast, the Appellant was enstooled ten (10) years after him on 23/10/2010, but he was gazetted, and his name also appeared on the National Register of Chiefs on 16/07/2014. The Respondent also says that he was inducted into the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council in 2011when it was established. At that time, the Appellant was not a member. According to him, by operation of law, he also became a Divisional Chief when Ngleshie Alata Division was elevated to the status of paramountcy. The Respondent asserted that, like the Appellant, the designation given him was “Mantse (Div Chief)” but in truth and in fact they both held the “Title of Office” of Sub -Divisional Chiefs which changed to Divisional Chiefs after the elevation in 2012. Subsequently, the then Paramount Chief gave him his present title as the Senior Divisional Mantse of Ngleshie Alata Traditional Area of James-Town but not as his “Title of Office.” He emphasised that relative to his date of enstoolment, he is senior to the Appellant by far.

He recounted that Obrempong Kojo Ababio V, who was then Ngleshie Alata Traditional Mantse, became the Council’s first President when it was set up. Nii Hanson had always been the next chief in seniority but , due to his medical indisposition, he stopped attending Divisional Council meetings. Thus, when the Traditional Council was set up, he still could not attend meetings , hence Nii Ngleshie Addy who was next in seniority to Nii Hanson assumed the position of next in seniority to Nii Kojo Ababio V. When the latter died sometime in December 2017 and Nii Ngleshie Addy V, the Adontenhene of Ngleshie Alata Traditional Area became the Acting President of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council, there was no election because they followed the provisions of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) which provides that in the absence of the President, the next to the President in seniority on the Council shall preside.

THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 4 In June 2021, Nii Ngleshie Addy V, who was the Acting President of the Council, also died and therefore, a vacancy occurred in the Presidency. On 06/07/2021, members of the Council met to fill the vacancy and in attendance for the first time was the Appellant. When the attention of the Registrar from the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs, who doubled up as the Electoral Officer, was drawn to the provisions of Act 759 to allow the Respondent to preside as the next in seniority, he refused and proceeded to invite nominations and to hold elections, which resulted in the Appellant winning. Subsequently, petitions were sent to the Registrar of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council and to the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs, Dodowa to take measures to overturn the elections. The opposition to the election of the Appellant has been ignored , and the Registrar of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council continues to work closely with the Appellant and has recently issued a notice of meeting of the Council at his instance.

The plaint of the Respondent is that pursuant to Act 759, he is the chief next in seniority to the deceased Acting President and the proper person to assume control of the office without elections. It is the case of the Respondent that the decision to hold elections to fill the vacancy of Acting President of Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council was made without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Act 759, which error is apparent on the face of the record and that the said decision ought to be quashed. As an administrative body, the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council is bound to follow Act 759 and has no right to depart from the law as laid down; therefore, estoppel does not arise.

2.2 Interested Party/Respondent/Appellant Case (“Appellant”) In their Affidavit in Opposition filed on 04/10/2021, the Respondent therein (Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council) and the Appellant herein denied the Respondent’s claim that he is a Senior Divisional Mantse of Ngleshie Alata THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 5 Traditional Area of James Town since there is no such position within the Ngleshie Traditional Area as it is not one of the categories of chiefs identified in Act

759. They contended that the Respondent was installed as a Sub-Divisional Chief on 02/10/2011 and his position has not changed. Besides, he was gazetted as a Sub-Divisional Chief and not a Senior Divisional Chief. As such, the title of the Respondent, which appears in the National Register of Chiefs, is a Sub- Divisional Chief and not a Senior Divisional Chief. Nonetheless, both parties were ad idem that the status of the Ngleshie Alata was elevated to a Paramountcy.

It is the case of Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council and the Appellant that the late Nii Ngleshie was elected during a meeting of the Traditional Council and not through seniority as claimed by the Applicant. The Appellant admitted that there was a meeting to fill the vacancy. However, the Respondent never raised any issues with the voting process, in which he voluntarily participated and got only two votes. Consequently, the Respondent is estopped from raising issues against the elections concluded since he willingly took part in all the processes which secured him only two votes. Therefore, his claims in paragraphs 12 and 13 cannot be maintained in law.

The Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council and the Appellant stated that the issue before the Court is in respect of his acting because the occupant of the stool has died, but not in a situation where the Chief is alive but unable to attend meetings as contemplated in section 15 of Act

759. They further indicated that as a Divisional Chief, the Appellant is more senior to the Respondent, who is a Sub- Chief and remains as such. It was their case that the timeless custom and tradition for appointing an Acting President of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council has been by voting and that the Respondent has fully participated in all elections organised by the Council until he lost in the last election with only two votes. The Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council and the Appellant further asserted that the THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 6 number of years in a position will not change the status of a Sub-Divisional Chief to become higher than a Divisional Chief in the hierarchy of Chiefs in Ghana pursuant to Act 759.

3.0 Decision of the Court The court granted the Respondent’s prayer for a certiorari order. In the ruling delivered on 13/05/2022, the court held as follows: “I hold and find that an order of certiorari will lie to quash the election held by the Respondent as Respondent acted in excess of its jurisdiction and contrary to section 15(3) of the Chieftaincy Act (Act 759). The chief next in seniority should be the acting President in accordance with the law and in the absence of a substantive President. The Court observes that both Applicant and the Interested Party were appointed divisional chiefs on the same date per the extract from the National House of Chiefs and so both are at par in terms of seniority. Application for certiorari is granted to the extent that the procedure adopted by the Respondent in electing the Interested party is wrong.”

4.0 Grounds of Appeal Aggrieved by the ruling above, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on18/05/2022 with the following grounds of appeal:

“a. The ruling is against the weight of evidence. b. The learned trial judge erred in law when (sic) quashed the voting which was conducted by the Ngleshie Alata Traditional Council on the 2nd Day of August 2021(sic) to elect the Interested Party as the Acting President of the Traditional Council.

Particulars of Error

i) When the learned Trial Judge found that voting is not prescribed by the Chieftaincy Act of Ghana to elect the Acting President of the Traditional Council THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 7 but ruled that it is through seniority of the Chiefs within the Traditional Council ii) When the learned Trial Judge based her ruling on section 15 subsection 3 of the Chieftaincy Act of Ghana, which is specific on meetings of the Traditional Council, but did not prescribe any mode of appointing an Acting President of the Traditional Council upon the death of the Paramount Chief of the Traditional Area. (iii) When in this instance where the Applicant/Respondent and the Interested party had their names entered in the National Register of Chiefs on the same day which shows they are at par in seniority, the best mode of determining the Presidency of the Traditional Council in a well-respected Democratic Country like Ghana should be voting and nothing else. iv)That the Applicant/Respondent willfully participated in the voting and got only two votes and if he had won this situation of bringing the matter to court will not have arisen and therefore, he is estopped by conduct. v) When the overall effect of the ruling of the Learned Judge will mean the two parties who are equal in seniority should have been made joint presidents of the Ngleshie Alata Traditional council which is unprecedented. c. That the Registrar found out that the Applicant/Respondent and the Interested Party are at Par in seniority, so he rightly resorted to the option of voting, which is allowed under our laws. d. That since the application was filed without the certificates of Exhibits, the matter should have been considered without the Exhibits, especially when a Preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel of the Respondent therein. e. Further grounds of appeal will be filed upon receipt of the Records of Appeal.”

5. Applying the Law and Analysis My Lords, I shall commence my analysis with the preliminary legal objection filed by the Respondent’s counsel before dealing with the appeal.

THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 8 5.1 The Preliminary Objection With respect to the instant appeal, on 09/02/2026, counsel for the Respondent filed a notice of preliminary legal objection in apparent compliance with rule 16 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19) as amended by the Court of Appeal (Amendment) 1998 (CI 21) to wit:

‘a) That the current Appeal which is about which Chief is to act in the absence of a substantive Ngleshie Alata has become moot since a new Paramount Chief in the person of Obrempong Wetse Kojo the II known in private life as Dr Prince William Asharku Bruce-Quaye has been enstooled and gazetted as the Paramount Chief of Ngleshie Alata Stool and therefore there is no need for anyone to act since the said stool is no longer vacant.’

Counsel for the Respondent attached the extract from the National Register of Chiefs approved on 21/06/2024. He submitted that pursuant to section 59 (8) of the Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759), which provides that the contents of the Register are prima facie evidence of the existence of facts or particulars stated in the Register, by operation of law, the production of the extract from the National Register of Chiefs serves as adequate evidence. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in determining the issue as to who should act as between the Respondent and the Appellant since there is no vacancy, as same has already been filled, thus rendering the case nothing more than an academic exercise.

In response, the Appellant’s counsel contended that the objection is misconceived in law and fact and ought to be dismissed. He submitted that the doct rine of mootness applies where a court decision will have no practical effect on the parties' rights. He cited the Supreme Court case of Asare v. Attorney General [2003-2004] SCGLR 823, which emphasised that courts do not engage in academic or hypothetical exercises but determine live controversies affecting THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 9 legal rights. He also referred to the celebrated case of Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra; Ex Parte Commission on Human Rights & Administrative Justice [2007-2008] SCGLR 213, where the Supreme Court held that where issues remain unsolved and the rights are affected, the matter cannot be dismissed as academic. He submitted that, since in the present matter the legitimacy of the processes leading to the alleged registration remains in challenge and the validity of the High Court-directed procedure is disputed, the matter is not moot. Therefore, a determination by this Honourable Court will directly affect the legal standing and customary authority at issue. Learned counsel proceeded to argue extensively on the validity of purported registration and its effect on this appeal.

My Lords, in the case of Osei Bonsu II v. Mensah and Others [2003-2005] 1 GLR 141, a preliminary legal objection was pronounced by the Court of Appeal to be an objection based on an irregularity, default of a practice direction or procedure, which default or issue must be apparent by reference to the particular default or the irregularity complained of. Such legal objections are not predicated on the merits of the case but on stated legal, procedural or technical grounds , which must be argued with reference to only decided cases, rules of procedure, without more. The attempt by learned counsel for the Appellant in this case to argue the merits of the processes leading to the registration and the validity of High Court-directed procedure is of no consequence in the determination of the preliminary legal objection regarding the mootness of the appeal. In Osei Bonsu II (supra), the respondent in that case went to the extent of making a direct application to the court to allow fresh evidence to be led to determine the veracity of the contention in the preliminary objection.

THE REPUBLIC V. NGLESHIE ALATA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, EX-PARTE NII ARYEEQUAYE VI: NGLESHIE ADADENTAN MANTSE - JUDGMENT

pg. 10 Mootness On the issue of mootness of the instant appeal, Acquah JSC (as he then was) in the case of Amidu v. President Kufour and Others [2001-2002] 2 SCGLR 86 at page 106 observed as follows: