iN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION, COURT 6) ACCRA, HELD ON THURSDAY THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO SUIT NO: GJ/106/2017 1. NILDR.1 ‘EH KWEIIL | 2. NIL AGYEMANG KESE II" PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS VERS: i, THE GA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL] 2. Nii DODOO NSAKI IL L DEFENDANTS/ 3. Nil BONI ADAMA LATSE IL J APPLICANT PARTIES: PLAINTIFFS - Represented by Emmanuel Nii Amui Kwei & Nii Amui DeGraft Kwei 18' DEFENDANT - Absent 28” DEFENDANT — Absent Nii Yaote Oto-~ a II — Represents 3" Defendant/Applicant COUNSEL: Patrick Justice Ennin for Frank Davies for the Plainti Present No Appearance for the Ist & 2nd Defendants Bright Akwetey for the 3° Defendant/Applicant - Present MOTION ON NOTICE TO SET ASIDE THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 13™ FEBRUARY, 2017 i Dr. Tetteh Kwvel Il v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside InjunctionIntroduction & Backgroun IU] On January 27, 2017 the Plaintiffs herein issued out from the registry of this Court a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim against the Ist and 2nd Defendants herein for the following i, A declaration that 1% & 2" Defendants flouted the Rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs (GARHC) made on 18/07/2008 and 02/02/2015 in the consolidated petitions challenging the eligi lity and installation of King Tackie Tawiah II] when they recommended, endorsed and forwarded the Chieftainey Declaration (CD) Forms of George Tackie Abia a.k.a ig Tackie Adama Latse Il under cover letter dated 13/11/2013 to the GARHC for his name to be gazetted in the National Register of Chiefs as Ga Mantse and that same is null and void and of no legal effect. ii, A declaration that 1* & 2"! Defendants have no capacity to recommend, endors and forward the CD Forms of George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse Il to the GARHC for his name to be gazetted in the National Register of Chiefs as Ga Mantse Whilst the consolidated petitions challenging the eligibility and stallation of King Tackie Tawiah IIT as Ga Mantse was then under adjudication before the Judicial Committee of the GARHC, and there was a sitting Ga Mantse in the person of King Tackie Ta hI ili, A declaration that 1* & 2" Defendants have no capacity to recommend, endorse and forward the CD Forms of George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse II to the GARHC for his name to be gazetted in the National Register of Chiefs as Ga Mantse Since he was not installed by 1* & 2" Plaintifls, the accredited kingmakers of the Ga Paramount Stool empowered by the final ruling dated 02/02/2015 (in the consolidated Petitions challenging the installation of King Tackie Tawiah III) to install a substantive Ga Mantse, iv. A declaration that the recommendation, endorsement and forwarding of the CD Forms of George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse II by 1* & 2™ Defendants ‘etteh Kwei If v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re et Aside Injunetionto the GARHC for his name to be gazetted in the National Register of Chief as Ga Mantse perpetuated by fraud y General damages against 1* & 2" Defendants for fraud. vi. An order of perpetual injunction restraining 1* & 2" Defendants by themselves, agents, privies, assigns and howsoever described from indueting George Tackie Abia ak. King Tackie Adama Latse Il into the Ga Traditional Council as Ga Mantse until the final determination of this suit, [2] Following the filing of the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim, on January 31 2017 the Plaintiff further filed a Motion on Notice for an Order for Interlocutory Injunction against the Ist and 2nd Defendants, The prayer of the Applicants was as follows: “an order for interlocutory injunction restraining 1st and 2nd Defendants, their agents, signs, privies, workmen, servants or howsoever described from inducting George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse II into the Ga Traditional Council as Ga Mantse pending the final determination of this suit” {3} By a ruling of this Court dated February 13, 2017 the appli ion for Interlocutory Injunction was granted, In the concluding part of the ruling stated at paragraph 22 under the heading ‘Conclusion and Disposition,’ this Court held as follows “Pending the final determination of th se, the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, assigns, etc. are restrained from indueting George Tackie Abia a.k.a, King Tackie Adama Latse II into the Ga Traditional Couneil as Ga Mantse and also transmitting the CDF to the National House of Chiefs for gazette notification” [4] Following the grant of the interlocutory injunction, the person who was directly affected by the order, Boni Nii Tackie Adama Latse II filed a Motion on Notice for Joinder pursuant to Order 4 Rule 5(2) (b) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004, C.I. 47 on Match 13, 2017 to be joined as a party. The Application was opposed by the Plaintiffs on legal grounds but the Court after hearing from both Counsel on April 13, 2017 granted the joinder application and the said Boni Nii Tackie Adama Latse II was joined as the 3rd Defendant to the suit. An Amended 3 Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei II v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside InjunctionWrit of Summons was filed by the Plaintiffs on May 26, 2017 and same was served on the 3rd Defendant. The Applicant's case for the Instant Application Statement of Defence on July 21, 2017 after filing the instant application 10 set aside the Following the service of the Amended Writ of Summons the 3rd Defendant later filed a Interlocutory Injunction on June 19, 2017. Accompanying the motion paper is a 21 paragraph alfidavit sworn to by Bright Akwetey, Esq. verifying the facts and the ground for the prayer. The thrust of the application according to the Applicant is that the PlaintiffS/Applicants misled this Court by not disclosing certain important facts when they applied for the interlocutory injunction 16] Ithas been averred that at the 1¢ of the application for injunction, the CD Forms of the Applicant had already been transmitted by the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs (GARHC) from Dodowa to the National House of Chiefs and the name of the Applicant had already been entered into the National Register of Chief and gazetted as the Ga Mantse on 24!" April, 2015. It js also averred that following the gazette notification, the Ist Plaintiff/Respondent filed an application for Judicial Review by way of Mandamus to compe! the National House of Chiefs to expunge the name of the Applicant from the National Register in Suit No. CID/16/S but by a ruling lated 31" May 2016 Wilson, J dismissed the application. (7| Iris also averred that prior to the judicial review stated above, the 1st Plaintifi/Respondent herein with five others filed a suit at the High Court, Acera in SUIT NO. BMISC 62/2015 TITLED NI TETTEH KWELI II & 5 OTHERS V, GEORGE TACKIE ADAMA TACKIE AND 16 OTHERS. According to the Applicant following the filing of that writ of summons, the Plaintiffs therein applied for an Interlocutory Injunetion to restrain the Defendants therein, which Defendants included the 3rd Defendant herein from inducting the Applicant into office as Ga Mantse [8] Itis further averred that by a ruling dated 27" April, 2016 this Court presided over by Her Ladyship, Naa Adoley Azu, J dismissed the application and opined that “the induction is a natural progression of the process of making an individual a Chief in Ghana and the process must continue in motion in the absence of a valid ground to restrain it”. The Applicant has attached as Exhibits Dr. Tetteh Kwei Il v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside InjunctionLatse 2”, being extract from the Register of the National House of Chief, “Latse 3” the ruling of Wilson, J and “Latse 4”, the ruling of Her Ladyship Azu, J to this application, {9} Iv is the further case of the Applicant that the instant suit and the interlocutory injunction whit was granted by this Court were filed after the Ist Plaintiff/Respondent herein who in this uit is called “Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei II had suffered the judicial defeats in Kumasi and here in Accra under the names “Dr. Nii Tetteh Kwei II” and “Nii Tetteh Kwei II”. Accordi gto the Applicant it is clear that the Ist Plaintifi/Respondent was “forum shopping” to get a Court to restrain the Applicant and he found same in this Court {10} cording to the Applicant the application which resulted in the order for interlocutory injunetion of February 13, 2017 was brought in bad faith because the Plaintifis/Respondents deliberately refused to disclose to this Court that the CD forms had already been submitted to the National House of Chiefs in Kumasi and the Applicant had already been gazzeted. It is also the case of the Applicant that the Plaintifii/Respondents deliberately misled this Court by not isclosing the failed attempts for an order for Mandamus and also the earlier failed attempt for an interlocutory \junetion. According to the deponent, the conduct of the Respondents in obtaining order for interlocutory injunetion which directly affects the Applicant “is to say the least sible and constitutes an affront to the honour, dignity and respectability of this Court in particular, and the judicial system in Ghana in general”, Based on all of the above, itis the prayer of the Applicant that the order for interlocutory injunction made by this Court on February 13 2017 should be set aside and/or vacated. ‘The Respondents’ Case: (11] ‘The 1st Plaintiff/Respondent has filed an affidavit in opposition to the instant application and says he is vehemently opposed to the appli ion. The 1st Plaintiff/Respondent says he has been advised by Counsel and believe same to be true that the instant application is grossly misconceived, frivolous and unmeritorious and same should be dismissed in limine. The Ist Plaintiff denies paragraphs 8, 14, 15, 16; 17, 18 and 19 of the affidavit in support and says “the 2nd Plaintiff’ and myself have not in any way deliberately misled this Court to grant the order of interlocutory injunction as prayed”. It is also deposed that “we in utmost candour have maintained Dr. Tetteh Kwei Il y Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside Injunctionthat the recommendation, endorsement and forwarding of the CD Forms of the 3“ Defendant by the Ist and 2nd Defendants to the GARHC for his name to be gazetted in the National Register of Chiefs as Ga Mantse was perpetrated by fraud, as 3" Defendant wants this Court to believe otherwi [12] According to the Plaintiffs/Respondent the Order of Interlocutory Injunction was regularly obtained and no useful purpose would be served for this Court to vacate same, It is also deposed that the Ist and 2nd Defendants who the Order was primarily against have failed to enter appearance to the Writ of Summons, let alone deliver a Statement of Defence and therefore the instant application is unmeritorious. He has therefore prayed the Court to dismiss the application. Counsel's Submission: [13] In moving the application and assailing the position of the 3rd Defendant/ Applicant that the Court's Interlocutory Injunction Order should be set aside, Leamed Counsel Mr. Akwetey re- bashed the affidavit evidence and submitted that this Court was misled by the Plaintiffs in granting the Order. Counsel referred to Exhibits Latsa | to 4 and in particular Exhibits Latsa and “3” and submitted that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant had already been gazetted at the time of the application and therefore according to Counsel the Court was misled. Mr. Akwetey wondered why the Ist Plaintiff did not disclose that he together with others made an attempt to have the gazette notification deleted but failed at the High Court in Kumasi. Based on all of the depositions in the altidavit, learned Counsel submitted that the order of i junction was granted in error and therefore same should be set aside. [14] Responding to the submission of Counsel for the Applicant, Mr, Patrick Justice Ennin holding Frank Davies’ brief implored the Court to dismiss the application as misconceived. Counsel submitied that the Plaintiffs/Respondents did not mislead the Court in granting the appl n on February 13, 2017. First and foremost, Counsel stibmitted that the application was moot because of what he termed “recent events and developments”. No particulars were provided by Counsel as to what constituted the recent events and developments, G | Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei II v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Rez Set Aside InjunctionOn the substance of the application, Counsel referred to the affidavit in opposition filed on August 30, 2017 and submitted to their knowledge the information put before the Court was accurate based on the facts as known to them. Mr. Ennin said the exhibits referred to by the Applicant did not come to their knowledge. Learned Counsel further submitted that their case has always been that the forwarding of the CD forms to the National House of Chiefs was perpetrated by fraud and therefore they did not mislead the Court, He therefore prayed the Court 1o dismiss the application. Analysis and Opinion of the Court: {16] First and foremost it is important to note that the instant application was not premised on any known rule of Court, It is therefore important to avert my mind to the inherent jurisdiction of Court, Ate mmon law, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear any matter brought before it unless a statute or some other rule of law limits that authority of the court to do so, Where a statute gives an excl ive jurisdiction to a court or tribunal to deal with a particular matter other than the High Court, the High Court is said not to be seized with the power to deal with the matter for want jurisdiction. Put differently, a court is said to lack jurisdiction when the subject matter is wholly foreign to its express jurisdiction and is totally unconnected with its recognized jurisdiction. [17] Iis material to point out that although the High Court may lack jurisdiction to deal with a particular matter or issue for reasons stated herein, it nevertheless has the residual power known as “inherent jurisdiction” that can be engaged by the court to preserve or protect the integrity of its proceeding Itis not defined or provided for in the rules of court but is customarily inherent or vested in the court to do justice in any given case. In the Canadian case of, MONTREAL PRUST CO v CHURCHILL FOREST INDUSTRIES (MAN! OBA) LTD [1971] 21 DLR Sed ed) @ 75, [1971] 4 WWR 542 Sir Jack Jacob speaking for the Province of Manitoba Court of Appeal attempted to define herent jurisdiction and when itis invoked, he postulated that “Inherent jurisdiction is the reserve or fund of powers, a residue source of powers, which the court may draw upon as nece: ry whenever it is just or equitable to do so, and in particular to ensure the observance of the due proce: ss of law, to prevent improper 7 | Ni Dr. Tetteh Kwei Iv Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside Injunctionvexation or oppression, to do justice between the parties and to secure a fair trial between them.” [18] Re-echoing the above principle, G. Vieyra J is credited with that statement of law that ‘the inherent power claimed is not merely one derived from the need to make the Court's order effective, and to control its own procedure, but also to hold the scales of justice where no specifi law provides directly for a given situation’, The inherent jurisdiction of the court is therefore inyoked When it is called upon to guide its proceedings, For instance when there is a need to vacate its void orders, or to right the wrong that the court lacked jurisdiction to do originally. [19] In ACHEAMPONG v ASARE-MANU (1976) 1 GLR 287 @ 289 Osei-Hwere J (as he then was) stated the law that inherent jurisdiction is invoked by the court in areas where it is necessary to prevent wrong or injury being inflicted by its own judgment. He explained that includes the power of the court to vacate its judgments obtained by mistake; of relieving judgments procured by fraud; and of undoing what it had no authority to do originally. See also: OMABOE ¥KWAME (1978) GLR 122. Based on all of the facts, 1 am of the respectful view that this is a proper ease to invoke the Court's inherent jurisdiction. | proceed to consider the instant application by posing this question: Would the Injunction Order have been granted if the facts as known now were put before the Court? [20] I wish to state that this application is not about the integrity of Counsel for the Plaintiff’ and also contrary to the submission of the Applicant; | am not ready to state that this Court was misled in granting the Order of Interlocutory injunction, Rather, in the opinion of this Court the Plaintiffs, and in particular the Ist Plaintiff withheld information that to all intents and purposes ought to have been disclosed to assist the Court to make an informed decision on the matter, Why do I say so? | EX PARTE MILLSITE INVESTMENT CO (PTY) LTD 1965 (2) SA 582 (T) at p S8SF in confirmation pf the decision in UNION GOVERNMENT AND FISHER V WEST 1918 AD 556 at p 572 *Attoh-Quarshie v. Okpote (1973) I GLR $9-69. 8 | Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei Il v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Rez Set Aside Inj(21| By January 27, 2017 when the instant writ of summons was issued at the registry of this Court and on February 13, 2017 when the order for interlocutory injunction was granted, the Ist Plaintiff knew that the CD Forms of George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse II had been forwarded to the National House of Chiefs and had been gazetted. He also knew that he as the Applicant filed an application to challenge the administrative decision of the National House of Chiets to gaz zette the George Tackie Abia a.k.a King Tackie Adama Latse II by Judicial Review in the nature of Mandamus at the High Court Kumasi and same was dismissed on May 31, 2016 He also knew that he together with five others as Plaintiffs in a different suit applied for an injunetion to restrain George Adama Tackie a.k.a Nii Adama Latse II and [6 others “together with their agents from indueting the Ist Defendant into the Ga Traditional Council as Ga Mantse” but same was refused by my leamed sister Naa Adoley Azu on April 27, 2016. The attached exhibits this application clearly speak in plaintive terms in support of those facts. The question is why were these details not disclosed to the Court, Unfortunately, 1 do not have the magi wand to ascertain why. I the administrative decision of the transmission of the CD Forms and nothing more. Indeed, | stated This Court granted the injunction application on account that this suit was only t do with at pars ph 12 of the ruling as follows: “Purther, I need to put it on record from the outset that my first reaetion after reading the Applicants motion was that it is a matter affecting chieftaincy but dressed up in b ostensibly as a simple matter for declaratory reliefs. However, upon a deep introspection and a further revi ew of the facts and the law it is my finding that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter because as I understand the relief and Counsel this, suit is only to challenge as illegal and fraudulent the recommendation and referral of the Chieftainey Declaration Form for induction, registration and gazette notification of King Tackie Adama Latse {I by the Defendants and not his nomination, selection and installation as Ga Manste”, g | Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwwei Iv Ga Traditi t Aside Injunction[23] Having become aware of the undisclosed information and having appraised myself by |, Lam of the view that this reauling the two rulings from the High Court Kumasi and that of Ac litigation is not only about the administrative transmission of CD Form but at the heart of ital is the purported nomination and enstoolment of the 3rd Defendant herein as the Ga Mantse pure and simple. It is a matter affecting chiefiaincy but masquerading as an administrative declaratory action. [24] It is important to note and be reiterated that “a cause or matter affecting chiefiaincy” has been judicially pronounced in a number of cases to mean principally, disputes and or questions relating to selection, nomination, installation or deposition of a chief and matters affecting stool The case, AMONOO v CENTRAL REGION HOUSE OF CHIEFS (2003-2005) 1 GLR 577, for instance is the legal authority for the proposition that the test for determining property whether an issue was a cause or matter affecting chieftainey was the existence of a “question” or “dispute”, or contested matter, or cause in the sense of a justiciable controversy, with respect to an actual challenge to the nomination, election, appointment, installation of a person as a chief, or his or her destoolment. [25] The Supreme Court in the case of IN RE: OGUAA PARAMOUNT STOOL; GARBRAH & OTHERS v. CENTRAL REGIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS & HAIZEL 2005-2006] SCGLR 193, unanimously speaking through Professor Modibo Ocran JSC of blessed memory postulated that “It appears from the language of the Chiefiainey Act, 1971 that the litmus test for determining whether an issue is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is the existence of a “question” or “dispute”, or contested matter, or a cause in the sense of a justiciable controversy, with respect to any of the matters listed therein, and not literally in respect of every matter bearing on chieftaincy [26] _ In the case of the REPUBLIC v. HIGH T DENU, EX PARTE AVADALI 1993. 1994] 1 GRE 561 the Supreme court held that it is the substance of the matter and not how it is couched that would make it a cause or matter affecting chieftainey. 40 | Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei Il v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside Injunction(27) In my respectful opinion the facts and circumstances of this suit bear resemblance to the circumstances and the case of Ry HIGH COURT, DENU; EX PARTE AVADALI SUPRA vhere the Applicant as Defendant had been sued for a declaration, inter alia, that the |st Plaintitt as the Hlotator/head of the Anyigbe family and was thus entitled to manage all the lands and operties o} the said family. The Applicant entered a conditional appearance and subsequently applied to have the writ set aside on ground of want of jurisdiction of the trial High Court because ording to him, although the suit was couched as a land dispute it was indeed a cause or matter fieeting chieftainey. ‘The trial High Court, however, dismissed the motion disputing that it was # cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The Applicant then applied to the Supreme Court to have the decision quashed by Certiorari. [28] The Supreme Court found on the available affidavit evidence that the Hlotaror/head of the Anyigbe family was a chief and that the purported enstoolment of the 1* Plaintiff as the Hloraror w nullity as being contrary to custom. ‘There was further evidence to show that the status Hlotator was a -chief of the Agave Traditional Area in the Volta Region. Having so found, the court in granting the application for Certiorari and quashing the decision of the High Court, held that the High Court k cked jurisdiction to try that case because it was a cause or matter affecting chieftainey 129] Inthis case, despite how Counsel for the Plaintiffs has persuasively articulated his pleading, it cannot be denied that there is a “justiciable controversy” between the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant with respect to a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. As indicated above having looked at the pleadings filed in this instant suit and having reviewed the earlier rulings in which the Ist Plaintiff herein was a party and in particular the reliefs he sought in those matiers based on the facts, I am of the respectful opinion that the present suit is a cause or matter affecting chieftainey which the High Court lacks jurisdiction. Chieftainey is the substance of the matter as the Supreme Court held and not how it is couched. Thus, stripped of the argumentation and documents deployed in the application for the interlocutory injunction, the basic matters for determination in this case are purely in the realm of chieftainey, for which the High Court lacks jurisdiction. In my respectful opinion, the Plaintiffs have launched a flanking, disguised attack on a| ‘Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei II v Ga Traditional Council & 2 Others Re: Set Aside Injunction« chieltainey dispute as an administrative function of the Ist and 2nd Defendants. In my respectful opinion, the Plaintiffs present action is an example of what the leamed Justice S.A. Brobbey? says amounts to “misusing court processes as a cloak, camouflage or pretext to determine a chieftainey dispute in the wrong forum”. The High Court lacks jurisdiction because itis not the proper forum. Clearly, by that lack of jurisdiction I could not and should not have considered the Ap; injunction and granted same. I was in error. [30] I note that the Plaintiffs and Counsel have profoundly maintained that the 3rd Defendant/A pplicant is a busybody because this suit is about the Ist and 2nd Defendants who have failed to enter appearance to the writ and to deliver a defence. With the greatest respect, I disagree because as st ted in my earlier ruli 1g for joinder it cannot be denied that the injunction order made direetly impacted him. To my mind it is not surprising that the Ist and 2nd Defendants chose not ‘o contest this suit, to be blunt they have nothing to lose but the 3rd Defendant/Applicant have everything to lose having already been gazetted. 131] Whilst itis important to accept the principle that a fresh action is the mode to impeach a Judgment obtained by fraud, in this case having found that it is a cause or matter affecting Chieltaincy, is this the proper forum for such an action? Based on my appreciation and understanding of the law, the answer is no. It is an i ue long determined by the Supreme Court in the case of the REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE ODONKORTEY! 1984-86] 2 GLR 148-165, In that case the facts from the head notes are that on the death of Nene Korle II, the stool occupant of the Tekperbiawe Division of Ada, a dispute arose between the second Applicant and the second Respondent as to which of them had been duly nominated, elected snd installed as chief in succession to the deceased. Relying on a document described as "articles of agreement’, the judicial committee of the Ada Traditional Council which adjudicated upon the ‘matter found in favour of the second Applicant. Having lost the case, the second Respondent sought a remedy at the High Court, Accra and prayed for a declaration that the “atticles of agreement” were a forgery or otherwise illegal and consequently the judgment of the Ada Traditional Council founded on it was null and void * The Law of Chieftainey in Ghana. Advanced Legal Publication, 2008 42 | Nii Dr. Tetteh Kwei II-v Ga Traditional Couneil & 2 Others Re: Set Aside Injunction[32] ‘The Supreme Court held that “the issues of fraud raised before the High Court were matters within the competence of the Ada Traditional Council which, like any other adjudicating body hhad power to set aside its own judgment if such judgment was obtained by fraud”. In other words, the apex Court held in that case that the Judicial Committee of the Ada Traditional Couneit is competent as an adjudicating body to investigate the issues of fraud and if established set aside its own judgment, The Supreme Court further held at Holding 3 that: “The courts have been astute enough to see through and thwart attempts by litigants to circumvent the law giving exclusive jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters to traditional courts. In the instant ¢: . the action brought by the respondent in the High Court was noth ng more or less than an attempt to circumvent the law, It was couched as an action for a declaration, but was, in fact, an invitation to the court to exercise an appellate jurisdiction, which it had not” [33] Clearly, based on the law, this court Jacks ju ction to entertain the present suit but it does not mean that the Plaintiff's allegation of fraud cannot be investigated and pronounced upon by an adjudicating body. The Plaintiff has the option of filing the present suit at the National House of Chiefs n Kumasi, a competent adjudicating body to investigate the allegations of fraud and pronounce on ne as postulated by the Supreme Court. [34] Based on all of the above, I end my analysis by granting the instant application, This Court's order for interlocutory injunction dated February 13, 2017 is hereby set aside. Furthermore, | also hold based on the above analysis that the Plaintiffs Writ of Summons together with the Statement of Claim be set aside for want of jurisdiction of this Court and same is hereby sel aside, 135] The Court awards cost of GH¢ 2,500.00 to the 3rd DefendanvApplicant. Counsel for the Defendants asked for GH@ 20,000 as Costs. CERTIFIED TRUE CO (SGD) KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO, J +s (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT en nA 43 +. Tetteh Kwei [Dv GayTraditional Council & 2 Others Re; Sev Aside Inju ISTRAR