BEDZRA vs. AGBADZE [1961]DLSC861

Date	1961-05-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC861

KORSAH JSC

C.J. JSC

SARKODEE-ADOO JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

G. S. LASSEY FOR THE APPELLANT

B. J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC861
																																						<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;[SUPREME COURT

[1961] 1 GLR 257

DATE: 23RD MAY, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>G. S. LASSEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

B.
J. DA ROCHA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

</div>

KORSAH,C.J., SARKODEE-ADOO AND
AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

JUDGMENT OF COURT

The facts in this case as stated in the judgment from which the
appeal has been lodged are not in dispute; upon those facts the learned judge
rightly, in our view, reached this conclusion: “The Divisional Court, Accra was
clearly misled by the affidavit accompanying the motion for mandamus in which
the applicant swore that the suit was pending for hearing and determination in
the Adaklu Court”.

Counsel for the appellant, agrees that in fact when the
application for mandamus was made, the Adaklu Native Court “B” had already
given judgment in favour of plaintiff, but counsel was under the impression
that since, in his view, the Adaklu Native Court “B” had no jurisdiction to
hear the case, the judgment alone was null and void but the suit was then, and
is still, pending in that court.

This contention is erroneous, because as soon as the native court
delivered judgment it became functus officio in respect of the suit and
therefore no suit or writ of summons remained in the court which could be
transferred. Consequently when the magistrate, purporting to act under the writ
of mandamus, reported the pendency of the suit to the Land Court, he was
clearly in error.

In the result we agree with the judgment of the Land Court and
accordingly dismiss the appeal.