The Accra High Court has restrained Nii Okaidja III from holding himself out in any manner whatsoever as the Gbese Mantse of Accra.
According to the court, by operation of the ruling of the High Court on June 8, 2007 and affirmed by judgement of the Court of Appeal dated November 19, 2009, Nii Okaija is not and could not be Gbese Mantse as alleged or at all.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice C. A. Wilson, made the order after upholding an application for injunction filed by Nii Ayi Bonte II.
In its ruling dated July 31, 2012, the court said it was clear that Nii Ayi Bonte II was the incumbent Gbese Mantse in the light of the decisions of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chief and the courts.
“The defendant, Nii Okaidja, does not have rightful standing as the Gbese Mantse and has no legal basis to hold himself out as such,” the court held.
The court also permanently barred Nii Okaidja by all decisions of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court from claiming or asserting or holding himself out in any manner to be Gbese Mantse or to be entitled to be recognised or treated as such.
It said the judgement of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs had not been set aside up to this period.
“The defendant, Okaidja III, who is neither a descendant of lineage of Nii Tetteh Ahinakwa II nor installed by the Akwete Krobo Saki We, the third ruling house, continues to display an unwillingness to comply with the orders of the Regional House of Chiefs and should not be indulged in his continuous failure to comply with the order,” the court said.
It said it had become apparent that the issue as to the occupant of the Gbese Stool or Gbese Mantse had already been determined by the Regional House of Chiefs and which had been confirmed by rulings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
“In my opinion the issue involved here, who succeeds to the Gbese Stool, has been placed beyond doubt by the judgement of the Greater Accra Regional House of Chiefs in 2003.
“Since the Regional House of Chiefs’ decision more than eight years ago, a number of other decisions at various levels on this point have been made by the courts.
“These decisions heavily favour the plaintiff,” the court said, adding that “a key difficulty for the defendant is that there is no single decision or judgement supporting his position.”