TULARLEY vs. ABAIDOO [1962]DLSC1732

Date	1962-05-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1732

KORSAH JSC

C.J. JSC

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

CRABBE J.S.C.

APPELLANT IN PERSON.

DEFENDANT IN PERSON.

[1962]DLSC1732
																																						<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:#548DD4">TULARLEY<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:#548DD4">&nbsp;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:#548DD4">ABAIDOO <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 411<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"> 28TH MAY, 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">

APPELLANT
IN PERSON.<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">

KORSAH, C.J., ADUMUA-BOSSMAN
AND CRABBE, JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This appeal is against a judgment dated the 27th June, 1960, of
Ollennu, J., sitting in the High Court, Accra, whereby he dismissed the claim
of the plaintiff-appellant (who will hereafter be referred to shortly as the
plaintiff) in favour of the defendant-respondent (who will be referred to
shortly as the defendant) for the sum of £G572 15s. alleged to be the amount of
rents collected by the said defendant in respect of three certain rooms in a
house situate at Club Road, Accra, which the plaintiff claimed to have
purchased validly at an auction sale in execution of a judgment of the now
defunct Ga Native Court “B”. The action raised the issue of the legality or
validity of the execution, and the conclusion or decision of the learned judge
was that:<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">“The execution which issued upon exhibit A [the native court’s
judgment] is illegal and void ab initio, and everything done under that
execution is itself null and void.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He gave as his grounds for this conclusion the reason that:<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">“The judgment exhibit A did not decree payment of money; it is
merely a declaratory judgment which decrees a right in favour of Madam Molley
[plaintiff in the action] to be paid fifteen shillings a month as from a
particular date It is not the type of order upon which the sort of execution
prescribed in Part 17 of the Procedure Regulations can apply. The decree in
exhibit A gave Madam Molley a legal right which she can enforce by a court
action if the right is infringed by default in the payment of any one month’s
maintenance; it is not a continuing decree like an order for alimony pendente
lite, or for maintenance in a matrimonial suit, the payment of which can be
enforced any time it falls into arrears by application to the court, without
the necessity for any further steps being taken to obtain an order to perfect
the original order. See Linton v. Linton (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 239; Stoner v. Fowler
(1885) 13 App. Cas. 20 and Findlay v. Findlay [1947] P. 1122.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The judgment of the native court dated the 16th October, 1947,
admitted at the trial as exhibit A, was in the following terms:<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">“Suit No. 870/47 MOLLEY versus ABERDU &amp; PAISITON COURT ORDER
Defendants are hereby ordered according to custom to give one room in the
property to plaintiff for sleeping purposes until his death; and also to
maintain the plaintiff at 15s. per month as from end of October, 1947. Failure
to comply with this order will result in executive process being issued by this
court. Copy to serve on defendants as well as to N.A. Police Inspector. (Sgd.)
D. M. TAGOE President<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">This appeal has raised the question whether the form of the said
judgment is such that execution could not issue thereon by the process
prescribed by the Native Courts Procedure Regulations1(1) as held by the
learned judge.<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">After the most anxious and careful consideration of the matter, I
have come to the conclusion, that, with great respect to the learned trial
judge, it is impossible to subscribe to his view that the portion of the
judgment or order of the native court in the following terms, “Defendants are
hereby ordered ... also to maintain the plaintiff at 15s. per month as from end
of October 1947” is, to quote his words, “not the type of order upon which the
sort of execution prescribed in Part 17 of the Procedure Regulations can
apply.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>