REPUBLIC vs. STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION; EX PARTE ASAMOAH II AND ANOTHER [1979]DLHC1115

REPUBLIC vs. STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION; EX PARTE ASAMOAH II... [1979]DLHC1115

Date	1979-06-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1115

SARKODEE J.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPLICANTS.

GAISIE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1115
																																						<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>STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT<o:p></o:p>COMMISSION; EX PARTE ASAMOAH II AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 129<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:
22 MARCH 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

JAMES MERCER FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants are asking this court to bring up the proceedings of the Stool Lands
Boundaries Settlement Commission held at the State House, Accra, on 11 July
1978 and to be quashed by an order of certiorari.<o:p></o:p>The
proceedings were in respect of an inquiry which the High Court, Sekondi, acting
under section 4 (2) of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1973
(N.R.C.D. 172), (hereafter referred to as the Decree) referred to the Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission (hereafter referred to as the
commission) to determine the boundaries in consolidated land suits Nos. 5, 6,
7/66 pending before that court. The applicants are the plaintiff and
co-plaintiff in that suit. On 11 July 1978 when the commission sat to determine
the matter referred to it, the plaintiff was absent but the co-plaintiff, the
defendant and co-defendant were present. Without hearing any evidence, the
commission purported to strike out the inquiry off the list and awarded ¢200
costs in favour of the co-defendants on the ground that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“As this
commission has no jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes between
individuals or between individuals<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">and
stools, and as the plaintiff here is merely an individual and the so-called
co-plaintiff is a stool which has not bothered to appear or represent the stool
since 18 April 1978, 20 June 1978, 4 July 1978 and today, I have no alternative
in the matter and consequently strike the enquiry off the list with ¢200 costs
in favour of the Nyarkrom stool. The Lower Inchaban stool is at liberty to have
the enquiry relisted if it so desires.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants therefore contend that the commission struck out the proceedings
without giving the plaintiff or any person the opportunity of offering any
relevant evidence and that the conduct of the commissioner amounts to an error
of law on the face of the record, denial of justice and that inasmuch as the
commission failed to hear any or all the parties, the conduct of the commission
amounted to a denial of natural justice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I must
first of all deal with the position of the commission in relation to the High
Court in particular and the hierarchy of courts in this country and to clear
any doubts in the mind of the chief registrar of the commission for by
paragraph (9) of his affidavit in opposition to this application he stated,
“That it is also a moot point whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash
the proceedings of another body with similar jurisdiction or power.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The High
Court of Justice was set up by article 112 of the Constitution, 1969, i.e. that
part of the Constitution which was saved by the National Redemption Council
(Establishment) Proclamation, 1972, s. 4. The jurisdiction and supervisory
powers of the High Court are clearly spelt out in articles 113 and 114
respectively. After the enactment of the Constitution, the Courts Act, 1971
(Act 372), was passed to provide for the establishment of regular courts in the
country and section 20 of that Act (except that it excludes military courts or
tribunals) repeats article 114 of the Constitution which makes provision for
the supervisory powers of the High Court</main>