OMENYO vs. POKU AND ANOTHER [1961]DLHC10226

Date	1961-12-25
Suit No.	G L R 778 - 782
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC10226

BRUCE-LYLE J.

Y. B. AMOATIN FOR J. N. HEWARD-MILLS FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

D. S. EFFAH FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1961]DLHC10226
																																						<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" >OMENYO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>POKU AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 778 - 782&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;DATE:
25TH DECEMBER, 1961<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>Y. B. AMOATIN FOR J. N. HEWARD-MILLS FOR
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

D. S. EFFAH FOR
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;BRUCE-LYLE
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal from the decision of the
Wenchi Local Court, sitting at Wenchi, and dated the 5th May, 1960.&nbsp; The claim by the plaintiff is for a
declaration of title to a piece of land situate at a place called
Korkrompe.&nbsp; When the case was before the
local court for hearing on the first adjourned date the defendants did not turn
up.&nbsp; They sent a letter to the court per
a bearer asking for an adjournment; the reason for the application was that the
first defendant had lost his father and therefore had to attend a funeral.&nbsp; The letter of application was signed by both
defendants.&nbsp; The court considered the
application and refused it and proceeded to hear the case in the absence of the
defendants.&nbsp; It heard the evidence of the
plaintiff and gave judgment for the plaintiff on his claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendants have appealed to this court
and at the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellants sought leave of
this court to argue two supplementary grounds, even though he had not filed
those grounds.&nbsp; Counsel for the
respondent did not oppose this application and this court gave counsel leave to
argue the grounds.&nbsp; Counsel for the
appellants first argued ground 1 of the original grounds of appeal.&nbsp; This ground in effect is that the trial court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, the subject-matter of the suit
being land situate at a place in the Techiman local authority area and not in
the Wenchi local authority area.&nbsp; Counsel
conceded the point that the local court magistrate who heard this case also sat
at Techiman and heard cases there; counsel failed to produce any order to this
court showing the particular area to which Korkrompe belonged.&nbsp; I have examined the writ closely and I find
that this land is stated as being on Wenchi stool land.&nbsp; There is nothing on record to show that the
fact that Korkrompe was not within the jurisdiction of the trial court, was
even brought to the court's notice.&nbsp; In
the absence from the record of this alleged existing fact I hold that the court
of trial rightly exercised its jurisdiction in hearing and determining the
case, and this ground of appeal should fail.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel next argued one of his supplementary
grounds, that the court of trial did not give the defendants fair chance to
defend their suit and relied strongly on the court's refusal to grant the
adjournment on the application of the defendants.&nbsp; Counsel contended that the trial court did
not exercise its discretion judicially and that the trial court failed to
consider the terms of the application and exercised its discretion on facts
which had little or no reference to the application before it.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The letter of application for adjournment was
written by the two defendants who made their marks to it and this was delivered
to the court by one Barimah.&nbsp; The ground
for asking for the adjournment was that the first defendant had lost his father
two days prior to the hearing date and had therefore to attend a funeral.&nbsp; Barimah informed the court that the letter
was given to him by one Adamu.&nbsp; The
plaintiff opposed the application on the ground (and here I quote form the
record of appeal) that “There is no element of truth in the note …” To decide
whether the discretion to grant or refuse such an application has been
exercised judicially it is convenient and necessary to examine the ruling of
the trial court. The ruling reads:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“It would appear that the defendants’ only
method of delaying cases was by false means as it is being done in this
case.&nbsp; The bearer herein did not receive
the note from either defendant but from another whose name does not appear on
our record.&nbsp; Case to proceed”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is apperent from this ruling that the
trial court considered the ground for the application for adjournment as false,
but it is clear this reason for that finding is not supported by the
record.&nbsp; There is nothing on record to
show that apart from this case then before the trial court, the defendants had
been parties in other cases in which they have adopted a similar method in
delaying the hearing of those cases.&nbsp; The
other reason that the note was given to a bearer by a person other that the
defendants and therefore the note was given to a bearer by a person other that
the defendants and therefore the note was false is too childish to be given any
consideration.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After the court had disposed of this
application, the plaintiff gave evidence and the court delivered its
judgment.&nbsp; It is significant that in the
judgment another reason was given for rejecting the application for adjournment
even though no evidence was led on that issue.&nbsp;
The reason mentioned in the judgment is: "Yaw Barimah admitted that
although he came from Techiman he did not witness or</main>