KRAMO vs. AFRIYIE [1992]DLHC10259

Date	1992-10-25
Suit No.	1 G L R 95 - 101
Citation No.	[1992]DLHC10259

OSEI-HWERE J.

[1992]DLHC10259
																																						<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" >KRAMO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AFRIYIE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">1 G
L R 95 - 101&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;DATE:&nbsp; 25TH OCTOBER, 1992<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;OSEI-HWERE
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal against the ruling of the
District Magistrate Grade II, Nkoranza, wherein the plaintiff's action was
dismissed for ouster of jurisdiction.&nbsp;
The plaintiff sued the defendant at the District Court Grade II,
Nkoranza, claiming:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(a) Declaration of title to and recovery of
possession of a piece of land at a place called Bepotintinso on Techiman stool
land;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(b)
Perpetual injunction; and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) Damages for trespass.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After the writ of summons had been served on
the defendant she filed a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court upon
the ground, as disclosed by her supporting affidavit, that the land in dispute
at Bepotintinso is "situated at Afrancho on Offinso stool land and not . .
. on Techiman stool land as falsely alleged by plaintiff and that the District
Court Grade II, Techiman, had therefore, no jurisdiction over the matter. The
defendant therefore claimed, that the District Court II Offinso, had
jurisdiction to try the case.&nbsp; When the
motion came on for hearing the trial magistrate ordered that the disputed land
be surveyed and a plan drawn out indicating in which traditional area the
Bepotintinso land is situate.&nbsp; After the
trial magistrate had heard the surveyor's representative who undertook the
survey and tendered the plan, he ruled that the area in dispute lies in Ashanti
Region and outside the jurisdiction of the District Court Grade II, Nkoranza,
and that his court had therefore no jurisdiction to try the suit. He
accordingly, dismissed the action with ¢140.30 assessed costs against the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff filed three grounds of appeal
in the following terms:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"(i) The magistrate's ruling was wrong
since it was the result of a confusion between regional boundaries and judicial
or juridical boundaries: the two are not the same.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; (ii)
The magistrate erred in basing his decision on a plan which did not show,
describe or demarcate the area or district within which the Techiman District
Court should operate.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(iii)
The magistrate erred in thinking that the area of jurisdiction of his court was
determined by regional boundaries as a previous magistrate intended to adopt
knowing that the judicial boundary or judicial district or division is not the
same as regional boundaries."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Two additional grounds of appeal were filed
as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;"(1) That the
ruling made by the magistrate was wrong in law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;(2) That the case
must be sent back to the Techiman District Court Grade II for the new
magistrate to hear it on its merit."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;The
first objection raised by the defendants counsel to the plaintiff's appeal is
that the plaintiff has no right of audience before this court.&nbsp; According to him the trial magistrate's
ruling dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction is an interlocutory
decision and the plaintiff could have come to this court only by the special
leave of the court below or of this court. If his objection is upheld then that
will of course, [p.99] afford a complete answer why the appeal should be
dismissed.&nbsp; It is well settled that no
litigant has an inherent right of appeal and that in all causes or matters an
appeal lies only if given by statute. An appellate court, conversely, has no
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal generally from an order or decision given
by a court below unless a statute confers that right: see Amponsah v. Minister of
Defence [1960] G.L.R. 140, C.A. The ruling, which is the subject of this
appeal, was itself delivered on 27 August 1971 and the plaintiff filed his
notice of appeal on 21 September 1971. On 22 September 1971, the Courts Act,
1971 (Act 372), was passed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is clear, therefore, that when the
plaintiff filed his notice of appeal the relevant enactment in force was the
C</main>