ASARE vs. ANTWI [1961]DLHC640

Date	1961-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC640

DJABANOR J

A. APPIAH-MENKA FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

BREMAH-ANDOH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1961]DLHC640
																																						<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, KUMASI]

[1961] 1 GLR 299

DATE: 1ST MAY, 1962.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

A.
APPIAH-MENKA FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BREMAH-ANDOH
FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

</div>

DJABANOR, J.

</div>

&nbsp;

By his writ of summons filed in the local court at Offinso, the
plaintiff claimed from the defendant:

“a tangible reason why he is not liable to account to plaintiff
for two years’ proceeds of four cocoa farms which defendant was appointed by
the plaintiff as his attorney to act on behalf of the plaintiff to pay a debt
of £G70 which was incurred by plaintiff’s brother Yaw Frimpong”.

This clearly is a claim for accounts, and by the rules, the local
court has no jurisdiction to try it. But it is the contention of counsel for
the defendant-appellant that in view of the defence pleaded, the action assumed
the character of a dispute as to title to the four farms, and that that issue
could properly be tried by the local court under section 98 (1)

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff about two or three
years ago mortgaged his four farms to the Cocoa Purchasing Company to secure a
loan to him of £G500. He defaulted and the farms were sold. According to him,
he then gave the defendant authority and power of attorney to redeem the
properties for him. The defendant accordingly redeemed the properties and had
been in possession of same, using the proceeds from the farms in repaying the
loan to the C.P.C. He now wants the defendant to render accounts to him so that
he may pay him any balance due and repossess his farms. The defendant on the
other hand denied that it was the plaintiff who instructed him to redeem the
properties for him (plaintiff), but alleged that he himself redeemed them with
his own money for himself, and therefore he was not accountable to the
plaintiff.

Section 98 (1) (a) of the Courts Act, 1960 1 is in the following
terms: “The civil jurisdiction of a Local Court shall be as follows:— (a) suits
(in this Act called ‘land causes’) relating to the ownership, possession, or
occupation of land, where the law applicable is exclusively customary law”.

I have already held that a claim for accounts is not triable by a
local court. The next point to consider is whether the law applicable to the
determination of the defence raised is customary law. In my view it is not. As
I understand it the defendant is claiming ownership of the farms by purchase
(he calls it redemption) from one who bought them at a sale in exercise of a
power of sale contained in a mortgage deed. In my view the law applicable to
the decision of these matters cannot be customary law. I must therefore hold
that the local court acted beyond its jurisdiction and I must uphold counsel’s
submission in that regard.

For the above reasons therefore I must allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment appealed from. The plaintiff will have to seek his remedy in
the appropriate court.

The defendant-appellant will have the costs of this appeal
assessed at 25 guineas.

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>&nbsp;

</main>