KWADJO vs. TAIBIL AND ANOR [1959]DLCA2020

Date	1959-02-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2020

VAN LARE AG. C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

OLLENNU J.

[1959]DLCA2020
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KWADJO<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">TAIBIL AND ANOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;[1959] GLR 58<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
3RD FEBRUARY, 1959..<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE AG. C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP
J.A., AND OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG C.J.<o:p></o:p>Van Lare
Ag. C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court<o:p></o:p>In this
case the learned Judge on the 20th of November, 1957 observed that the case was
one proper for an enquiry by the Stool Lands Boundary Commissioner under the
Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Ordinance, 1950. He therefore adjourned the
proceedings for mention on the 13th February, 1958.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon the
matter coming on that day, the learned Judge asked counsel for the plaintiff to
show cause why the case should not be struck out or dismissed, in view of his
ruling of the 20th November, 1957. We find it impossible to understand the
reasoning in the learned Judge’s mind, inasmuch as he had no power even to stay
the proceedings at that stage under section 4, because no order had been made under
section 3(2) of the Ordinance. Nevertheless, the learned Judge dismissed the
action for no explainable reason, and without adjudication of any kind, and
awarded what in our view were substantial costs against the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
suffices to say that this is manifestly wrong, and the appeal is therefore
allowed. The ruling appealed from is set aside, including the order as to
costs, and the case is remitted to the Court below to be dealt with according
to law.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant will have his costs in this Court fixed at £33 Os. 3d.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>