It is stated under Order 33 Rule 5 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 as follows:

“Where it appears to the Court that the decision of any question or issue arising in any cause or matter and tried separately from the main cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment as may be just”.

Based on the above rule the court in the exercise of its discretion to moderate the trial to achieve effective and speedy justice and on a consideration of the pleadings and issues before the court invited the lawyers to address the court on the following questions posed to them:

1. Whether or not the determination of who is the Dzasetse and also the acting Mantse of Asere is not a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy.

2. If the answer to the question above is yes whether this court is clothed with jurisdiction to determine a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy

The court was minded to pose the above questions for answers due to the first claim of the Plaintiff endorsed on the writ of summons wherein it prays for:

A declaration that the 1^st Plaintiff as Dzatsete and acting Asere Mantse has the right to use the Asere palace for the purposes of the Asere stool. Plaintiffs in their statement of claim contend in paragraph 1 that: “The 1^st Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere and acting Asere Mantse”. The Defendant in his statement of Defence respond to this allegation as follows:

“In answer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of claim Defendants state state that the 1^st Plaintiff is the Dzasetse of Asere. He is not the acting Asere Mantse since there is a substantive Asere Mantse who is known as Nii Asere Boi VII who was enstooled in 2007”.

The denial of the claim that 1^st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse, in the reply of the Plaintiffs notes that even though there was installation of the said person but same had been challenged by the Dzorshie family and until the resolution of whole is the Asere Mantse, 1^st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse. In the face of such assertion and denials issues were joined in the application for directions when among others, this was put down as part of the issues for determination: whether or not the 1^st Plaintiff is the acting Asere Mantse?

Will the determination of this issue be a cause or a matter affecting chieftancy? The Courts Act, Act 459, section 57 divest all the traditional courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court of either original or appellate jurisdiction over cause or matter affecting affecting chieftancy except where the matter before the High Court is in respect of the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the court or a matter seeking to declare as a nullity a decision of a chietancy tribunal as null and void due to fraud. See the decision of Pwamang JSC in EBUSUAPANIN NTIAKO KOBINA E. KOBI v AHANTA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL J4/62/2016’ 2^ND MAY, 2018.

For the section 57 states as follows:

“Subject to the Constitution, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, Circuit Court and a District Court shall not entertain either at first instance or on appeal a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.”

The Chieftancy Act, Act 759, 2008 defines a cause or matter affecting chieftancy under section 76 to mean:

“Cause or matter affecting Chieftaincy means a cause, matter, question or dispute relating to: