AMANKWA vs. AKWAWUAH AND OTHERS [1962]DLHC1338

Date	1962-05-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1338

APALOO J.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JNR. FOR K. A. T. AMANKWA FOR THE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT.

E. K. WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

[1962]DLHC1338
																																						<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:#00B0F0">AMANKWA <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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">AKWAWUAH AND OTHERS<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, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>[1962] 1 GLR 324<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

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"> 3 RD MAY, 1966.<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">

C.
F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JNR. FOR K. A. T. AMANKWA FOR THE PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E.
K. WIREDU FOR THE DEFENDANTS-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">

APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal from the judgment of the Kumasi Local Court
delivered on the 16th June, 1961. That judgment dismissed a claim by the
plaintiff for a declaration that house No. N.A. 90, Asafo, is the property of
the plaintiff’s family.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The appellant does not seek to quarrel with the judgment on its
merits, and his counsel expressly said he did not feel able to argue on the
facts. His ground of appeal is that the local court was in error in deciding
this case, as it had no jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The proceedings show that on the 30th March, 1961, Abena Donkor,
the third defendant swore to and filed an affidavit in the local court the
substance of which is that the house in dispute was worth £G1,500 and that the
defendants did not wish to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the local
court. It appears that a copy of this affidavit was served on the plaintiff.
There is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff disputed this sum as
the value of the house in dispute. The case came before the court for the first
time on the 4th April, 1961, when presumably the local court magistrate’s
attention was drawn to this affidavit. He noted as follows:<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">“An affidavit before the court without motion restraining the
court not to entertain the suit for lack of jurisdiction refused by this court
for the foregoing reasons: <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">(1) the affidavit was not accompanied by motion; <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) this court has jurisdiction to decide the case provided all
parties consent to it as under section 98, Courts Act, 1960, subsection (2).”<o:p></o:p>Subsection (2) of section 98 of the Courts Act, 19601(1) reads as
follows: “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”. In this case, it clearly appears from the third defendant’s
unchallenged affidavit, that the subject-matter of this land cause exceeds
£G200. There is nothing in the section of the Act on which the magistrate
relies which entitles him to exercise jurisdiction, although it appears that
the subject-matter exceeds £G200 if there be no formal motion. Furthermore, it
was brought home to him in the clearest possible terms that the defendants did
not consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by him. I feel no doubt that he was
in error in assuming jurisdiction in this case and my course would have been
plain had the defendants raised the point of jurisdiction in this appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems that when the defendants were overruled by the court,
they then submitted to the exercise of jurisdiction, and called evidence to
rebut the plaintiff’s claim. In the result, they were successful, and do not
now make any complaint as to the exercise of jurisdiction by the local court.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff now, however, contends that in the circumstances of
this case, the local court erred in exercising jurisdiction. The plaintiff by
his counsel arg</main>