On the authorities the moment the Court formed an opinion that a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy had been raised in an action, its jurisdiction was ousted. However if the court had jurisdiction over the other issues raised, it could stay proceedings pending a determination of the particular cause or matter affecting chieftaincy by the appropriate chieftaincy tribunals; it could not determine that cause or matter as a marginal issue. However, if the cause could be taken without necessarily deciding the issue affecting chieftaincy, the court could entertain the action. In the instant case since the parties had raised the issues as to (I) what the ruling clans at Appolonia were; (2) whether the plaintiffs were kingmakers of Appolonia; and (3) whether the ruling clans at Kpone and Appolonia had any constitutional relationship at customary law, a· cause or matter affecting chieftaincy had been clearly raised by the action. Since it was clear that it was not possible to determine the mode of alienation of the Appolonia lands without first determining who those kingmakers were, the trial court should have stayed proceedings and asked the parties to go before the appropriate chieftaincy tribunal to determine what ruling clans existed at Appolonia and whether the plaintiffs were the kingmakers of those clans because the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine those issues. Accordingly, the court erred in proceeding on the basis that the plaintiffs were the heads of the ruling clans whose consent was necessary to alienation of stool land at Appolonia when the chieftaincy issue had not been determined. Adanji v HIIIIVOO (1908) Red 233 and Helbllrahah v Ntaklldzei (1927) FC ’26-’29, 286 not followed.