The Judicial Committee of the Volta Region House of Chiefs (VRHC) has dis­missed a petition brought before it by Zikpitor (stool father), Mr Korsi Hottor of Battor and seven others for the destoolment of the Paramount Chief of Battor Traditional Area, Togbega Patamia Dzekley VII.The Committee chaired by the Para­mount Chief of Adaklu Traditional Area, Togbega Gbogbi Atsa V, said the reliefs and pleadings sought by the petitioners for the destoolment of the paramount chief fell short of section 76 of Act 759 of the chieftaincy Act 2008.According to the Judicial Committee of the House, the petitioners' pleadings did not raise "an actual challenge to the nomination, election, appointment and installation of a person as a chief, his /her destoolment or right of participation in such decision making ceremony".Per the Committee's decision, the alle­gation of the petitioners that the para­mount chief failed to render account for sand winning for 15 years had no link to or connected to a disputed nomination, election, installation or deposition of the respondent, to the extent that the petition was fundamentally flawed.According to the Committee, its juris­diction did not stretch to cover recovery of stool properties which were uncon­nected to nomination, election, installa­tion and disposition of chiefs as stated in the chieftaincy Act.The Committee contended that if judi­cial Committees were to assume jurisdic­tion on matters of accounting to people on stool properties, then the primary focus of adjudicating on critical matters arising from chieftaincy dispute would be totally lost.The Committee was of the view that matters of recovery of stool proper­ties and account for same which were not connected with enstoolments and destoolments were within the remits of the regular courts.The Committee stressed "if adjudica­tion committee did not properly apprise itself of its specific remits under section 76 of the chieftaincy Act, 2008, cases like this, which primarily seek to litigate recovery of monies and land would be re-packaged in disguise as causes or mat­ters affecting chieftaincy, when in actual fact the root of the matter was recovering of land and money, which by section 76 of the chieftaincy Act 2008, was outside our jurisdiction".The petitioners, according to the Committee had failed to invoke the jurisdiction under section 76 of Act 759 to constitute a chieftaincy dispute, and they also failed to establish prema facie to demonstrate actual challenge which fell within section 76 of the chieftaincy Act, 2008.The judicial Committee of the Volta Regional House of Chiefs had therefore dismissed the case and awarded cost of GH¢20, 000 in favour of the embattled Togbega Patamia Dzekley. FROM SAMUEL AGBEWODE, HO