YEBOAH vs. KRAMO [1976]DLHC455

Date	1976-06-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC455

MENSA BOISON J.

A. A. MUNUFIE FOR THE APPLICANT.

KUMI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC455
																																						<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" >YEBOAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KRAMO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 407<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:
2 JUNE 1976.<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">

A. A. MUNUFIE 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the defendant in a land case before the district court asking
for an order of transfer of the action to the High Court for hearing on the
ground that contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion that the value was ¢80.00, he
fixes it at ¢4,000.00.<o:p></o:p>In a
ruling on 17 May 1976 the district court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear
the action, resting on the fact that at an earlier proceeding on 13 May 1976
the parties had “agreed to the value as being ¢80.00.”<o:p></o:p>Mr. Kumi
for the plaintiff-respondent raises a preliminary objection to the motion, viz.
that as there is a subsisting ruling, the defendant-applicant should have
appealed from that decision—but not come by way of a fresh motion. The
submission is resisted as I see it on two grounds:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Firstly
that section 37 (2) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), which gives power to the
district magistrate to determine the value of such land, if the value is
disputed, requires evidence to be taken. As I see it what is urged is that
since no such evidence was taken the trial magistrate could not be said to have
determined the value according to law. And so the applicant could come by fresh
motion. The said section 37 (2) of Act 372 provides:<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">“37. (2)
Where there is dispute as to whether or not any amount claimed or the value of
any land or property in any action, cause or matter is in excess of the amount
or value specified in subsection (1) of this section in relation to that
action, cause or matter the District Court in question shall call evidence as
to the said amount or value and if it finds that it exceeds the amount or value
specified in subsection (1) it shall, subject to the powers of transfer of the
Chief Justice, transfer the case to a Circuit Court or the High Court,
whichever of such Courts has jurisdiction in the matter.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Although
it adopted a summary procedure, the district court, in the instant case, did
rule on the matter upon what it explained “as agreement by the parties as to
the value being ¢80.00.” It is open to question whether where admission is made
by a party, not in evidence, the trial court in such circumstances could not
act upon it. But that is not for decision now.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The point
here is, with a subsisting ruling, I am of the opinion that the aggrieved party
should first appeal against it. To come by a fresh motion, no enabling provision
having been shown me, will mean confusion, in that after the High Court has
ruled the ruling of the district court will in law still subsist. To leave the
ruling of the district court standing and to apply to the judge for transfer
will be confusion worse confounded as happened in the city of Babel for the
courts will be speaking in different tongues.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Secondly,
the applicant’s counsel relies on section 101 (1) of Act 372 which gives the
High Court judge, with respect to transfer of any case from district courts,
the same powers of transfer as reside in the Chief Justice generally. As I
understand that section the High Court judge can properly exercise that power
whilst an action or a cause or matter is pending for trial or hearing. Once
that cause or matter has been determined the High Court judge has nothing to
transfer.<o:p></o:p>