TAWIAH AND OTHERS vs. BRAKO AND OTHERS [1973]DLCA2208

Date	1973-02-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2208

JIAGGE JA

SOWAH JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

JONATHAN ARTHUR FOR THE APPELLANTS.

FLEISCHER FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2208
																																						<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" >TAWIAH AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BRAKO AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<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;[1973]
1 GLR 483<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:
27 FEBRUARY 1973.<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">

JONATHAN ARTHUR FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

FLEISCHER 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">

JIAGGE, SOWAH AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Jiagge
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal is from the ruling of the
High Court, Koforidua, upholding a preliminary objection that the refusal of
the district court to set aside a writ of fieri facias was an interlocutory
decision and that failure to obtain leave to appeal was fatal and not a curable
irregularity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondents on an application under section 37 (3) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961
(Act 81), obtained a writ of fieri facias against the appellants for the
recovery of costs in the sum of N¢210.00 awarded by the Chieftaincy Committee
in their favour. The Kwahu Traditional Council gave judgment against the
respondents (who were defendants in a constitutional case before that court) on
27 July 1967 and found in favour of the appellants (who were plaintiffs). The
respondents herein appealed against the decision and the Chieftaincy Committee
allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Chieftaincy Committee, presided
over by Siriboe J. (as he then was) heard the case de novo and on 28 September
1967, delivered judgment dismissing the claim and awarding costs fixed at
N¢210.00 against the appellants herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
attempt to enforce the execution of the order for costs awarded in their
favour, the respondents applied and obtained a writ of fieri facias from the
Nkawkaw District Court, Grade II. The appellants applied to the same court to
have the writ set aside on grounds that will be considered later in this
judgment. The application was dismissed by the district court and on appeal to
the High Court, the preliminary objection aforementioned was upheld. The
application for costs made by the respondents in the district court was in
accordance with section 37 (3) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), which
provided 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">“For the
purposes of the recovery of costs, a certificate of the Committee setting forth
the particulars may be filed without payment of any fee with any court other
than a Local Court, and when so filed shall be accepted by the court as
sufficient evidence of the facts so certified; and costs imposed under this
section shall be deemed to have been imposed by that court and be liable to
taxation accordingly.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
substance of this provision which is the recovery of costs, was the dispute
between the parties before the Nkawkaw District Court Grade II, and the only
issue to be decided by that court. When the court made an order dismissing the
application to set aside the writ of fieri facias, it disposed of the substance
in dispute and so determined the action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The true
test whether the court’s decision was interlocutory or final is in our opinion
set out by Lord Alverstone C.J. in Bozson v. Altrincham Urban District Council
[1903] 1 K.B. 547 at pp. 548-549, C.A. when he said:<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">“It seems
to me that the real test for determining this question ought to be: Does the
judgment or order, as made, finally dispose of the rights of the parties? If it
does, then I think it ought to be treated as a final order; but if it does not,
it is then, in my opinion, an interlocutory order.”<o:p></o:p>