REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT JUDGE, HO; EX PARTE AGBO [1972]DLHC2413

Date	1972-01-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2413

ATA-BEDU J.

DOKU FOR THE APPLICANT.

RESPONDENT NOT REPRESENTED.

[1972]DLHC2413
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CIRCUIT JUDGE, HO; EX PARTE AGBO <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1972]
1 GLR 287<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
14 JANUARY 1972.<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">

DOKU FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ATA-BEDU J.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) has brought this
notice of motion under Order 59, r. 4 (1) and (2) of the Supreme [High] Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), for an order of certiorari to have
the proceedings and the order of the Circuit Court, Ho, dated 30 April 1971
brought up before this court to be quashed on the grounds stated in the
affidavit of the applicant and the statutory statements and the order
accompanying this application. Leave to issue this notice of motion was granted
on 8 July 1971 and not on 21 October 1971 as alleged by counsel for the
applicant during his argument.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
culminating in this application as disclosed in the copy of the statement exhibited
in the applicants affidavit as A and in the argument of counsel for the
applicant are that at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the respondent) and others, proceedings under the Chieftaincy
Act, 1961 (Act 81), were commenced at the Asogli Traditional Council, Ho,
against applicant then as the Fiaga of Goviefe under the stool name of Togbet
Sakrafo IX; the respondent was then acting in his capacity as the head of the
Agbo family of Goviefe Kwahu. The proceedings terminated on 6 September 1968 in
favour of the respondent and the others. The applicant was ordered by the
council to pay assessed costs of ¢442.10 to the respondent and the others on
his side. The applicant was later destooled .<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Failure
of the applicant to pay the said costs of ¢442.10 prompted the respondent to
institute an action by a writ of summons at the Circuit Court, Ho, for recovery
of the same. The statement of claim accompanying the writ is exhibited in the
applicant’s affidavit as A. Apart from the statement marked A no other
documents were filed by the respondent. On 16 February 1971 an appearance under
protest was entered followed by an application alleging that the circuit court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the writ was irregular
within section 46 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81). On 30 April 1971 the
Circuit Court, Ho, gave a ruling dismissing the application with costs of
¢10.00 to the respondent and ordering the case to proceed. Exhibited as B in
the affidavit of the applicant is the certified copy of the said ruling. It is
these proceedings together with the said ruling which are sought to be removed
and to be quashed by this court. As rightly contended by counsel for the
applicant, this application is of considerable interest in point of law. The
endorsement on the respondent’s writ of summons is in the following words:<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
plaintiff’s claim is for ¢442.10 being costs awarded in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendant by the Asogli Traditional Council held at Ho on the 6th
day of September, 1968, which costs the defendant has failed or refused to pay
or in favour of the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would
appear that the plaintiff’s action was commenced in January 1971. The
contention on behalf of the applicant is that the sum of ¢442.10 claimed became
due as a result of Chieftaincy proceedings and, therefore, the procedure for
the enforcement of it as laid down in section 46 (2) of the Chieftaincy Act,
1961 (Act 81), must be strictly adhered to. It is submitted that the
institution of the action by the respondent by a writ of summons is not in
compliance with the said section 46 (2).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>