ADIKA AND OTHERS vs. DOE [1961]DLHC10227

Date	1961-10-30
Suit No.	G L R 627 - 629
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC10227

PREMPEH J.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

[1961]DLHC10227
																																						<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" >ADIKA AND
OTHERS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DOE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, HO]<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 627 - 629&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;DATE:&nbsp; 30TH OCTOBER, 1961<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<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;">

J. W. DE GRAFT JOHNSON
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<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>PREMPEH
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In this appeal, it is clear that the
plaintiffs-respondents utterly failed to prove their title to the land which
they claimed in paragraph 1 of their writ of summons.&nbsp; Quite apart from this fact, the native trial
court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to title to the disputed land on
the defendant-appellant. At the close of the case, the appellant submitted that
the respondents had failed to establish their claim, and that they had
therefore made no case against him to answer, but the court proceeded to enter
judgment for the respondents, granting them title to the land.&nbsp; On the evidence as to the respondents' first
claim it is my view that the trial court erred in ruling out the submission of
the appellant, and that it further erred in giving judgment for the respondents
as it did.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In this court, counsel for the respondents
did not seek to support the trial court's judgment in any way.&nbsp; He in fact urged that the whole judgment
should be set aside, not on the grounds as contended by the appellant, but on
account of the fact that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
plaintiffs’ claims appearing in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the particulars of claim,
and referred to that part of the judgment which purported to deal with the
second remedy sought by the respondents in paragraph 2 of the particulars of
claim.&nbsp; I think this is an interesting
point.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The respondents' second remedy in the
particulars of claim is clearly one in tort for £G600 damages for unlawful
arrest, and one in which if damages were allowed, an appeal could not lie to
this court: see Solomon Jonah v. Kojo Owu.[1] In that case, plaintiff sued for:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“the sum of £25 damages from the defendant to
show cause why if the plaintiff promised to show him boundary of land of forest
on his own wish and has not got the chance to do so, the defendant seized the
plaintiff from entering into the said land of forest in which farms are made
for foodstuffs.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is a case which is strikingly like the
one in paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs' particulars of claim, and in that case
their Lordships held that the cause of action was not one relating to land, and
accordingly set aside the judgment of the Provincial Commissioner's Court which
purported wrongly to entertain an appeal from the native court and the native
appeal court on the issue.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The particulars of the respondents' claim
herein was not at any stage of the proceedings amended to delete paragraph 2
thereof.&nbsp; On the evidence it is clear
that the trial court dealt with the claim and the evidence on claim 2, and made
a non award on it in its judgment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The native trial court's jurisdiction in tort
is limited to £G100 and not £G600, and in the circumstances it could not have
entertained a claim in damages for the tort of unlawful arrest in that
amount.&nbsp; But even so, even if the claim
had been for £G50 for damages within its jurisdiction, my view is that court
would not have been properly seized of both claims 1 and 2 together at the same
time, because if any damages were allowed on claim 2, as I have clearly
indicated, an appeal would not like to this court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I think it will be in the interest of justice
if a retrial of the case is ordered.&nbsp;
Accordingly I do allow the appeal, but order the case to be remitted
back to the trial court or to any appropriate court now having jurisdiction in
the matter to be tried de novo.&nbsp; I award
the appellants costs in this court which I assess at 50 guineas.&nbsp; Costs of the above hearing to abide the
result of the rehearing.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DECISION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

Appeal allowed.<o:p></o:p></main>