The High Court has declared the appointment of Nii Amoo Dodoo to the Judicial Committee of the Ga Traditional Council null and void, ruling that he does not meet statutory qualifications under the Chieftaincy Act.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, Justice Alexander Graham held that the appointment contravened Sections 12(2), 14(1), and 29(2) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).
The suit was brought by Daniel Nii Armah Tette, also known as Nii Attohi, against the Republic, the Ga Traditional Council, and Nii Amoo Dodoo.
Supervisory Jurisdiction
The Ga Traditional Council had argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the matter affected chieftaincy, and that the applicant had no locus standi.
Justice Graham rejected both objections. He said while the High Court is barred by Section 57 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) from determining substantive chieftaincy disputes, it retains supervisory jurisdiction over adjudicating bodies, including Judicial Committees of Traditional Councils.
Citing Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution and Supreme Court decisions in Republic v High Court, Denu; Ex parte Kumapley [2003-2004] SCGLR 719 and Ebusuapanyin Ntiako v Ebusuapanyin Wereko DLSC 478, the judge said the court may intervene where a traditional adjudicating body acts without jurisdiction or in breach of natural justice.
“This is clearly a matter of legality of administrative action, not a chieftaincy dispute,” he said.
On standing, the court accepted that Nii Attohi, who described himself as Head of one of the Royal Families of Ayi-Kai Doblo and a party to a related chieftaincy dispute, had sufficient interest.
He had exhibited court proceedings and orders in which he was directly involved.
The core issue was whether Nii Amoo Dodoo was lawfully appointed to the Judicial Committee.
Section 12(2) of Act 759 requires members of a Traditional Council to be listed in the National Register of Chiefs.
Section 14(1) limits council membership to persons on that register. Section 29(2) states that a Judicial Committee must be composed of members appointed from among council members.
Justice Graham said the combined effect is “unambiguous” as only persons on the National Register of Chiefs can be council members, and only such members can sit on the Judicial Committee.
Exhibit tendered by the applicant showed Nii Amoo Dodoo’s name does not appear in the National Register of Chiefs, a fact the respondents did not effectively dispute.
Another exhibit showed an injunction restraining him from holding himself out as chief, and a further exhibit confirmed a contempt conviction for disobeying that order.
“The 2nd Respondent’s (Nii Amoo Dodoo’s) claim to chieftaincy status is at best disputed and at worst unlawful,” the court said.
“In the face of these statutory requirements and undisputed facts, the appointment… cannot stand.”
The judge added that under the doctrine of ultra vires, a statutory body acting beyond its enabling statute acts voidly.
He also faulted the Council under Article 23 of the Constitution for acting unreasonably in appointing someone subject to an injunction and contempt finding.
Orders
The court granted three orders: a declaration that the appointment violates Act 759 and is null and void; an order of mandamus directing the Registrar of the Ga Traditional Council to expunge Nii Amoo Dodoo’s name from the Council and Judicial Committee records; and an order of prohibition restraining him from acting as a member of either body.
Counsel for the applicant was Jacob Noye while Nii Amoo Dodoo was represented by Yaw Dankwah.
A Daily Guide Report