HAUSA AND ANOTHER vs. DAWUDA [1961]DLHC5394

Date	1961-09-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5394

OLLENNU J.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

E. OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

[1961]DLHC5394
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">HAUSA AND ANOTHER<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">DAWUDA<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 550&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;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 27TH SEPTEMBER, 1961.<o:p></o:p>

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

JOE
REINDORF FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E.
OBETSEBI-LAMPTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 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>This case commenced in the Accra West Local Court by writ of
summons issued on the 3rd October, 1960. The claim is for statement of accounts
of rents and mesne profits realised from house No. L.764/26, covering a period
of eighteen months ending in August, 1960. The co-plaintiff was joined upon an
allegation that he is “the representative of the Korle-We people who granted
the land on which the building in issue is situate”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At its best, the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs in
support of the claim was most indifferent; but as the determination of this
appeal turns upon the question of jurisdiction, it is better not to make any
further observations on the merits of the case.<o:p></o:p>When the case for the plaintiffs closed, the defendant filed
submissions alleging, among other things, that the land with the buildings
thereon, subject-matter of the suit, was valued at about £G800, and therefore
he was objecting to the jurisdiction of the local court to hear the case. The
plaintiff filed a twelve-paragraph reply to those submissions, but all she said
in her reply to the submission as to the value of £G800 is that she had
contributed substantially to the cost of erection of some of the buildings on
the land. The impression she left is that she did not dispute the said
valuation. The local court magistrate overruled the objection to his
jurisdiction in the following terms:<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 am unable to understand the reasonableness, potentiality or
otherwise of these submissions by the defendant; defendant failed to
cross-examine plaintiff or plaintiff’s witness and never gave reasons.
Submissions by the defendant unacceptable. Evidence by plaintiff’s witnesses
stand legally accepted by the court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendant then led evidence and produced plans, building
permit and other documents relating to the land and the buildings thereon. It
is common ground that the buildings on the land consist of seventeen rooms; one
block of the buildings which contains five rooms, appear upon the evidence to
have been built of cement concrete blocks.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the conclusion of the case of the parties, the local court
magistrate inspected the land, and thereafter gave judgment in favour of the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The first ground of appeal argued in this court is that the local
court had no jurisdiction in the suit since the subject-matter was worth more
than £G200, and the defendant objected to the court hearing the case.<o:p></o:p>The local court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction
in land causes is limited. Section 98 (2) of the Courts Act, 1960,1(1) provides
that:<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) Where it appears that the subject-matter of a land cause
exceeds £G200 the Court sh</main>