DIVISION: HIGH COURT, HO
DATE: 21 APRIL 1965
BEFORE: SOWAH J.
JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.
Though the appellant never raised the point of law which is about to be discussed, it came to my notice during a rather
[p.297] of [1965] GLR 296
careful reading of the record. I therefore gave further opportunity to counsel to argue that ground, namely, whether or not the local court had jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the case as from 1 September 1962. At p. 24 of the record of appeal there is the following note: “By court: with the coming into force of the Courts (Amendment) Act, 1962, the jurisdiction of the local courts has been limited in respect of land causes where the value is above £G200. The fact is that the land in dispute herein is of the value of above £G200. I therefore found it wise to suspend further proceedings in the case and refer the matter to the High Court, Ho, for advice.” This record was dated 30 October 1962. On 15 June 1963 there is this note: “Court note: The case’s facts were referred to the judge of the High Court, Ho, and his advice was that according to the circumstances surrounding the case, ‘I, the local court magistrate N. K. Attikese who started the hearing should have it completed’.” Mr. Awoonor-Williams has argued that once the local magistrate had been authorised to continue the hearing of the case by a High Court judge the issue of jurisdiction as far as this court is concerned is closed and, whether the authorisation was wrong or not, I cannot set it aside, nor can I review the order. In support of this argument he cited the case of Dankwa v. Fuller.1 It may well be that if the advice had taken the form of an order or ruling in court then I would certainly have been bound by it whether I agree with it or not, indeed my agreement would be immaterial. But I do not think I am also bound by advice given by the High Court. In short, there is no ruling or order by the High Court in this matter. I am therefore not reviewing any order made by the court; nor am I setting aside a ruling or order made by a competent court of concurrent jurisdiction. I am looking at the statute which gave jurisdiction to the local magistrate and asking whether or not at the time that he delivered judgment he had jurisdiction to do so. For it is not the High Court which confers jurisdiction on courts of inferior jurisdiction. Those courts are the creations of statute and their jurisdiction is defined by the enactments which created them. They therefore have jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions and intendments of the Act creating them.
[p.298] of [1965] GLR 296
By section 27 of the Courts (Amendment) Act, 1962,2 section 98 of the Courts Act, 1960,3 was substituted and by the new section 98 (2) the jurisdiction of the local court is limited to land the value of which does not exceed £G200 and no local court shall have power to exercise jurisdiction in respect of land the value of which exceeds £G200 “such question shall be submitted by the local court for the decision of the judge of the High Court referred to in subsection (2) and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive.” There was absolutely no need for the reference by the local magistrate to the High Court, because the parties were all agreed that the value of the land exceeded £G200 and was in the neighbourhood of £G1,000. There is no provision in the Act that a magistrate could do so when the parties themselves are agreed as to the value. Subsection (3) only empowers a reference to the High Court where there is a dispute on the question whether the value exceeds £G200 or not. The position as I see it is this: that with the coming into force of the Courts (Amendment) Act, 1962, the local court had no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of this suit as there is no provision in the said Act enabling him to continue a case which he had already started. As said before, the High Court does not confer jurisdiction of any sort on any court. In the circumstance the High Court could not by administrative procedure authorise the local magistrate to continue with a case in which he had no jurisdiction. I will allow the appeal and set aside the judgment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is at liberty to institute fresh action at the appropriate court. Since the point was taken by the court the appellant will only have the costs of the record of appeal assessed at £G7 7s.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
S. K. D.-B.
