AMEKO vs. AGBO AND ANOTHER [1961]DLHC573

Date	1961-12-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC573

PREMPEH J

E. D. KOM FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1961]DLHC573
																																						<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" >

&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, HO]

[1961] GLR 747

DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

E.
D. KOM FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

</div>

PREMPEH, J.

</div>

&nbsp;

One of the grounds of appeal taken by counsel for the appellant is
that the local court magistrate failed to comply with the relevant section of
the Courts Act, 19601(1), and that therefore the local court was not vested
with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject-matter in dispute, and I think
that that ground must prevail.

“The plaintiff claims from the defendants jointly and severally
the sum of £G100 being damages for trespass into the plaintiff’s land commonly
called Tsiho at Tsito in the Awudome area of the Ho District to wit; the first
defendant had authorised the second defendant to farm in the plaintiff’s
aforesaid land and upon this authority the second defendant began to farm
groundnuts, etc. in the said land without the consent and permission of the
plaintiff. The boundaries are as follows: on the east by Kpakpo’s piece of
land, on the west by Adza Wuiah’s piece of land, on the south by Mr. Adaae’s
piece of land, and on the north by Kpakpo’s piece of land, and it will approximately
value £G50”.

“The defendants/counter-claimants claim against the plaintiff’s
claim is one hundred pounds (£G100) being compensatory damages for making
wrongful and false claim against the defendants with intent to deprive
defendants of their right of ownership of the Tsinyanu land at Tsito Awudome—to
wit: that the defendants are the bona fide owners of the piece or parcel of
Tsinyanu land of Tsito, which said land the defendants have been using for
farming purposes. The said land is bounded on the north by the property of Adza
Wuiah, on the south by the property of Megbetor, on the east by the property of
Kpakpo and on the west by the property of Salami, with valuation of £G500
approximately”.

By the amended counterclaim, the compensatory damages claimed were
amended to read £G1,000 instead of £G100.

The civil jurisdiction of the local court is found in section 98
of the Courts Act, 1960. Section 98(1)(a) says: “The Civil jurisdiction of a
Local Court shall be as follows: Suits (in this Act called ‘Land causes’)
relating to the ownership, possession or occupation of land where the law
applicable is customary law.” And section 98(2) says: “Where it appears that
the subject-matter of a land cause exceeds £G200 the Court shall not exercise
jurisdiction except with the consent of the parties.”

The value of the subject-matter in this case was given by the
appellant as approximately £G50, and by the respondents as approximately £G500,
and there is nothing in the record of appeal to show that any question was put
to request the consent of the parties to the case being heard by the local
court, and/or that the parties consented to the local court’s jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the matter with the claims as they stood.

The operative words of subsection (2) are: “Where it appears that
the subject-matter of a land cause exceeds £G200”. I am of the opinion that the
value of the property stated in the particulars of the counterclaim was
sufficient to make it appear to the local court magistrate that the
subject-matter brought before the court exceeded its jurisdiction, and that he
could not try the issues joined until he had obtained the consent of both
parties, which alone could bring the case within the court’s jurisdiction. The
point taken is one as to jurisdiction and can be raised at any stage of the
proceedings:

see Nana Kwame Asante v. Nana Kwame Tawia substituted by Chief
Asafu Boakye II.2(2) It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that
since the appellant himself fixed the value of the land as £G50 he must be
deemed to have consented to the local court’s jurisdiction, and that the fact
that the respondents fixed the value of the subject-matter at £G500 cannot
avail him on the point taken by him. I am unable to accept that contention. I
think that the test is this: if the odds of t</main>