AMEGASHIE vs. DABLAH AND ANOTHER, [1965]DLHC1771

Date	1965-04-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1771

SOWAH J.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE APPELLANT.

E. B. AWOONOR-WILLIAMS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1965]DLHC1771
																																						<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" >AMEGASHIE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DABLAH AND ANOTHER, <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 296<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
21 APRIL 1965.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

E. B. AWOONOR-WILLIAMS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>Though
the appellant never raised the point of law which is about to be discussed, it
came to my notice during a rather careful reading of the record. I therefore
gave further opportunity to counsel to argue that ground, namely, whether or
not the local court had jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the case
as from 1 September 1962.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At p. 24
of the record of appeal there is the following note:<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">“By
court: with the coming into force of the Courts (Amendment) Act, 1962, the
jurisdiction of the local courts has been limited in respect of land causes
where the value is above £G200. The fact is that the land in dispute herein is
of the value of above £G200. I therefore found it wise to suspend further
proceedings in the case and refer the matter to the High Court, Ho, for
advice.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This record
was dated 30 October 1962. On 15 June 1963 there is this note:<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">“Court
note: The case’s facts were referred to the judge of the High Court, Ho, and
his advice was that according to the circumstances surrounding the case, ‘I,
the local court magistrate N. K. Attikese who started the hearing should have
it completed’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Awoonor-Williams has argued that once the local magistrate had been authorised
to continue the hearing of the case by a High Court judge the issue of
jurisdiction as far as this court is concerned is closed and, whether the
authorisation was wrong or not, I cannot set it aside, nor can I review the
order. In support of this argument he cited the case of Dankwa v. Fuller.1 It
may well be that if the advice had taken the form of an order or ruling in
court then I would certainly have been bound by it whether I agree with it or
not, indeed my agreement would be immaterial. But I do not think I am also
bound by advice given by the High Court. In short, there is no ruling or order
by the High Court in this matter. I am therefore not reviewing any order made
by the court; nor am I setting aside a ruling or order made by a competent
court of concurrent jurisdiction. I am looking at the statute which gave
jurisdiction to the local magistrate and asking whether or not at the time that
he delivered judgment he had jurisdiction to do so. For it is not the High
Court which confers jurisdiction on courts of inferior jurisdiction. Those
courts are the creations of statute and their jurisdiction is defined by the
enactments which created them. They therefore have jurisdiction in accordance
with the provisions and intendments of the Act creating them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
section 27 of the Courts (Amendment) Act, 1962,2 section 98 of the Courts Act,
1960,3 was substituted and by the new section 98 (2) the jurisdiction of the
local court is limited to land the value of which does not exceed £G200 and no
local court shall have power to exercise jurisdiction in respect of land the
value of which exceeds £G200 “such question shall be submitted by the local
court for the decision of the judge of the High Court referred to in subsection
(2) and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.” There was
absolutely no need for the reference by the local magistrate to the High Court,
because the parties were all agreed that the value of the land exceeded £G200
and was in the neighbourhood of £G1,000. There is no provision in the Act that
a magistrate could do so when the parties themselves are agreed as to the
value. Subsection (3) only empowers a reference to the High Court where there
is a dispute on the question whether the value exceeds £G200 or not.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>