ADONKOSI & ANOR. vs. HOWUSU & ANOR [1959]DLHC1982

Date	1959-05-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC1982

OLLENNU J.

APALOO FOR THE APPELLANT.

BOATENG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1959]DLHC1982
																																						<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">ADONKOSI &amp; ANOR.<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">HOWUSU &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (LANDS DIVISION), ACCRA]<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 222<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:
12TH MAY 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">

APALOO FOR
THE APPELLANT.<o:p></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">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>On the
merits there is no substance in this appeal.<o:p></o:p>The only
ground of appeal which was seriously argued in this second appeal was the
additional ground filed on the 9th May, 1959, which reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
judgment of the Native Court is a nullity as the appeal was not heard in
accordance with law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
support of that ground, Counsel relied upon a judgment delivered by me on the
28th April, 1959, in Land Appeal No. 86/57, entitled Krakani v. Agbenoto &amp;
anor., in which I interpreted Regulation 129 of the Native Courts (Southern
Section of Togoland) Procedure Regulations to mean “that each party must be
given an opportunity if necessary to say anything he might wish to urge in
support of or against the appeal,” and, further, that where on the face of the
record of proceedings it appeared that judgment was given against a party to an
appeal, whether appellant or respondent, non-compliance with the provisions of
the said regulation would make the proceedings before the Native Appeal Court a
nullity. Counsel in the present appeal accordingly asked the Court to declare
the findings before the Kpandu District Native Appeal Court null and void, as
it does not appear that the appellant was given a hearing before his appeal was
dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is,
however, also the judgment delivered by me on the 30th April, 1959 in Land
Appeal No. 168/58, entitled Anago &amp; ors. v. Avudega III. In that case I
stated:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“In my
opinion the word ‘heard’ in the regulation should be interpreted to include
‘reading written arguments’ as well as hearing oral arguments.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant therein having in fact filed exhaustive written arguments of his
appeal, and the Native Appeal Court having given due consideration to those
written arguments before dismissing his appeal, I held that there had been
sufficient compliance with the provisions of the said regulation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion the present appeal cannot be distinguished from that case. The lengthy
document filed by the appellant went far beyond mere “detailed grounds of
appeal;” it stated the detailed grounds of appeal, and then argued each such
detailed ground of appeal in full. Thus the appellant may properly be said to
have argued very fully and exhaustively in support of his appeal; and the
respondent, on his side, replied to those arguments in writing.<o:p></o:p></s</main>