The High Court in Adenta has dismissed a lawsuit from the La Agbawe Stool which sought to destool the Chief of Oyarifa, Michael Okpoti Mensah, also known as Nii Djata (1st Defendant), for “lack of jurisdiction.”
The Court, presided over by Justice Mawuse Bedjrah, said the nature of the action before the Court against Nii Djata pertains to chieftaincy, and the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.
The decision of the Court followed a motion filed by lawyers of the Oyarifa Chief, Michael Okpoti Mensah, also known as Nii Sowah Gborgblor (Nii Djata), to have the action dismissed for “lack of jurisdiction,” which was upheld.
Following the dismissal of the action, the Court has also awarded a cost of GH¢5,000 against the Agbawe Stool, represented by Sam Larsey (Head of Nii Owusu We), Daniel Sowah Boye (Head of Otopa We), and Jeffrey Okpoti Adjei (Head of Awua We).
The La Agbawe Stool had sued Michael Okpoti Mensah, also known as Nii Sowah Gborgblor/Nii Djata (1st Defendant), and Joseph Mensah Odzenma (aka Nii Mensah Odzenma) (2nd Defendant), over the installation of the 1st Defendant as the Sub-Chief of Oyarifa. Read Also: NDPC Unveils 2025 National Progress Report Findings
But the 1st Defendant had filed a counter motion to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the action, which, in his view, is a chieftaincy matter, and it was upheld.
*First Defendant’s argument*
The 1st Defendant (Applicant) through his lawyer, Abdul-Gafar Ablorh Abordo, while moving the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, said their motion is premised on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
While relying on the motion paper and the supporting affidavit, Counsel contended that the Writ issued by the Plaintiffs (Respondents) “is one that calls for a determination of cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.”
Counsel said, per the statutes and, for that matter, the Courts Act 1993, Act 459, Section 117(1), provides that a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy is any cause, matter, question, or dispute relating to any “nomination, election, selection, installation, or deposition of a person as a chief or the claim of a person to be nominated, elected, selected, installed as a chief.” http://dailydemocratnewsonline.com
This, Counsel argued, means that the Court can only make a declaration as in relief ‘A’ of the instant Writ only after it investigates the matter of the nomination, election, selection, or installation of the Applicant as a “Sub-chief of Oyarifa.”
“The determination of such nomination, installation, etc., has not been vested by law in this Court,” Counsel said, pointing to the Law of Chieftaincy in Ghana by H/L Justice S.A. Brobbey, pages 232-233.
“It is our position that the Writ itself, especially the statement of claim, pleads matters about the nomination, selection, and installation of a ‘Sub-chief of Oyarifa.’”
Counsel also stated that paragraphs 6-33 plead that the Applicant has been surreptitiously installed as ‘Sub-chief’ of Oyarifa, and the Respondent alleged that his installation is null and void.
He said, apart from the 1st Relief endorsed on the Writ of Summons, the other reliefs are reliefs that are dependent on the declaration sought in the 1st relief, and such reliefs cannot be determined in isolation.
Counsel pointed to the Supreme Court case of The Republic vs The High Court General Jurisdiction Division, Ex Parte Nii Agyemang Kesse III and Nii Duodu Nsaki II and 4 Others, Interested Parties 2019 DLSC 6500, pages 6504-6505, to support his argument.
*Plaintiff/Respondent opposition*
Sharon Quartey, Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Respondents, opposed the application, saying, “We rely entirely on our affidavit in opposition filed on 4/03/2026, save for further authority to buttress our application.”
While pointing to Section 57(5) of the Chieftaincy Act 2008, Act 759, Counsel prayed that “the use of the words ‘Sub-chief’ by the Plaintiff/Respondent does not connote the chieftaincy contemplated under the Chieftaincy Act.”
“This is because no ‘Chief’ or ‘Sub-chief’ of the Agbawe Family of Oyarifa has ever been registered with the National House of Chiefs as a ‘chief’ or ‘Sub-chief,’ neither have their names ever been entered into the Chieftaincy Bulletin to be recognized as chiefs,” she argued.
Counsel argued that, throughout the pleadings of the Plaintiff/Respondent, “they have referred to their family as a ‘Family’ and not as a ‘Stool.’”
“The Plaintiffs and their families ordinarily used the words ‘Sub-chief’ to connote the headship of their families, considering that there is a substantive chief and overlord of Oyarifa who is not a party to this suit,” she said.
Counsel also relied on the authority of Republic vs High Court, Koforidua Ex Parte Bediako II, 1997/1998 GLR, page 488, where the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the word ‘Chief’ appears in a statement of claim or pleadings does not necessarily imply that the question before the Court is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.
*By Court*
Justice Bedjrah, the presiding Judge, after hearing submissions, said the matter before the Court pertains to chieftaincy, and the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain it.
Consequently, the 1st Defendant/Applicant’s motion was granted, and the Plaintiffs’ suit was dismissed on that premise.
“I have studied the Motion on Notice to Dismiss Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction, the Affidavit in Support, as well as the Affidavit in Opposition, and all documents filed in this matter, and having further listened to Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the matter before me is a matter or cause affecting chieftaincy,” the Court ruled.
“Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” the Court ruled before awarding a cost of GH¢5,000 against the Plaintiffs (Respondents) in favour of the 1st Respondent (Applicant).
