AMOAKO ATTA II AND OTHERS vs. KOFI II AND OTHERS [1962]DLHC1342

Date	1962-02-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1342

OLLENNU J.

BREDU PABI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

SIR EDWARD O. ASAFU-ADJAYE (MESSRS. A. ASAFU-ADJAYE AND KORANTENG-ADDOW WITH HIM) FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1342
																																						<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">AMOAKO ATTA II AND OTHERS <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">KOFI II 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, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 115<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"> 20TH FEBRUARY, 1962.<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">

BREDU
PABI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

SIR
EDWARD O. ASAFU-ADJAYE (MESSRS. A. ASAFU-ADJAYE AND KORANTENG-ADDOW WITH HIM)
FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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>On the 12th October, 1957, an order was made by this court staying
proceedings in this case. The said order was made in pursuance of the
provisions of section 4 of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Ordinance1(1)
which reads:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“4. If an Order is made under
subsection (2) of section 3 of this Ordinance for the determination of<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">any boundary and— (a) any
proceedings are then pending in any Court; or <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes"><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>(b) any proceedings are brought in any Court after the making of
the Order and before the boundary has been finally determined as provided in
this Ordinance, <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">and in either case it appears to the Court that the situation of
that boundary is in dispute in, or is otherwise relevant to the determination
of, those proceedings, the Court may order a stay of the proceedings until the
boundary shall have been finally determined as provided in this Ordinance, and
may make such incidental or consequential orders as the Court may deem just”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The powers given to the court by this section to stay proceedings
are different from the general inherent powers of the court to stay
proceedings. The inherent powers of the court are exercised when the action is
vexatious, or is an abuse of the legal process on the grounds that it is
frivolous, vexatious, or harrassing, or where the proceedings are manifestly
groundless or where there is clearly no cause of action in law or inequity: see
Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley2(2) and Burr v. Smith.3(3) It is also different
from the special powers given to the court by some rules of court to stay
proceedings in certain circumstances, e.g. Order 7, rule 1, where a solicitor
whose name is endorsed on the writ declares that the writ was not signed by
him, or Order 25, rule 4, where the pleadings show the action to be frivolous
or vexatious.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>An order made under the inherent powers of the court or under the
powers given it by the rules to stay proceedings finally determines the action
and can be pleaded as a bar to subsequent proceedings. On the contrary an order
made by the court under section 4 of Cap. 139, merely operates to suspend, not
to determine the proceedings finally. In the language of the section “the Court
may order a stay of the proceedings until the boundary shall have been finally
determined as provided in this Ordinance”. I interpret those words to mean that
so long as the enquiry on account of which the order for stay was made is
pending before the Boundary Settlement Commissioner, the court cannot place the
case on the cause list for it to be tried unless the order for stay is set
aside either on review or on appeal. But as soon as the boundary is finally
determined, that is the contingency upon which the proceedings were stayed,
happens, the court should entertain application for re-listing the suit for the
proceedings to continue; and upon the suit being placed back on the cause list,
the court may make such order or orders therein as the justice of the case may
require paying due regard to the decision given by the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this case the order for stay of p</main>