NYAME vs. YEBOAH [1959]DLHC2035

Date	1959-05-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2035

OLLENNU J.

BOATENG FOR THE DEFENDANT YEBOAH (APPELLANT).

AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFF NYAME (RESPONDENT).

[1959]DLHC2035
																																						<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">NYAME<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">YEBOAH<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 218<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">

BOATENG
FOR THE DEFENDANT YEBOAH (APPELLANT).<o:p></o:p>

AKUFO-ADDO
FOR THE PLAINTIFF NYAME (RESPONDENT).<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>(His
lordship stated the history of the matter, and proceeded-)<o:p></o:p>Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted<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">(1) that
it is against all principles of justice that one set of people should
adjudicate and decide upon a case, and another set implement the decision, and<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">(2) that
there were two Aworoso-Oworobong foot-paths, and there is nothing to show that
any evidence was taken to show that the old foot-path is the one which the
Beponghene and his elders awarded as the boundary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
first point Counsel submitted that when the Beponghene went on the land to lay
down the boundary, he was not accompanied by any of his elders who had assisted
him at the arbitration, but by a new set of people, and therefore what the
Beponghene did on the land was a nullity. But I do not agree with the
submission in the first ground of appeal, which in my opinion is misconceived.
Once a Court has given a decision in a case it becomes functus officio.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The implementation
of the decision does not imply a reopening of the dispute, or a continuation of
the adjudication. All that it means is the carrying of the decision into
effect. That is a function which can be performed by any one who knows what the
subject of the decision is. For example, if an order is made for possession of
land in favour of a plaintiff, that decision of the Court is not implemented by
the Judge who made the order; it is the Sheriff who is the proper person to do
that. All that is required is that the land described in the order should be
properly identified to the Sheriff’s Officer by someone who knows that land.
But should uncertainty arise as to the identity of the land, that doubt could
be resolved (upon proper evidence) by a tribunal different from the one which
made the original decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
same way, an award of arbitration need not be implemented by the board of
arbitrators themselves. In the instant case it could have been implemented by
deputies appointed by the Beponghene, if there were such who could of their own
knowledge identify the old foot-path, and demarcate the boundary according to
the arbitration award. But what was the evidence? The Beponghene said:-<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">“I then
suggested to depute messengers to inspect the area to allocate for the
plaintiff her area which had been enclosed in the defendant’s cultivation in
dispute. Both refused the appointment of the deputies. I agreed to attend
myself for the inspection and fixing the boundary line. We then inspected the
old path and saw for ourselves. We inspected through it. The area of late
Opanin Kissi which the defendant tilled by the right side of the foot-path was
released for the plaintiff accordingl</main>