ASARE v. ANTWI
[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]
DATE:1ST MAY, 1962
COUNSEL
A. Appiah-Menka for the defendant-appellant.
Bremah-Andoh for the plaintiff-respondent.
JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.
By his writ of summons filed in the local court at Offinso, the plaintiff claimed from the defendant:
“a tangible reason why he is not liable to account to plaintiff for two years’ proceeds of four cocoa farms which defendant was appointed by the plaintiff as his attorney to act on behalf of the plaintiff to pay a
debt of £G70 which was incurred by plaintiff’s brother Yaw Frimpong”.
This clearly is a claim for accounts, and by the rules, the local court has no jurisdiction to try it. But it
is the contention of counsel for the defendant-appellant that in view of the defence pleaded, the action
assumed the character of a dispute as to title to the four farms, and that that issue could properly be
tried by the local court under section 98 (1)
(a) of the Courts Act, 1960.1(1)
The facts of the case are that the plaintiff about two or three years ago mortgaged his four farms to the
Cocoa Purchasing Company to secure a loan to him of £G500. He defaulted and the farms were sold.
According to him, he then gave the defendant authority and power of attorney to redeem the
properties for him. The defendant accordingly redeemed the properties and had been in possession of
same, using the proceeds from the farms in repaying the loan to the C.P.C. He now wants the
defendant to render accounts to him so that he may pay him any balance due and repossess his farms.
The defendant on the other hand denied that it was the plaintiff who instructed him to redeem the
properties for him (plaintiff), but alleged that he himself redeemed them with his own money for
himself, and therefore he was not accountable to the plaintiff.
Section 98 (1) (a) of the Courts Act, 19602(2) is in the following terms:
“The civil jurisdiction of a Local Court shall be as follows:—
(a) suits (in this Act called ‘land causes’) relating to the ownership, possession, or occupation of land, where the law applicable is exclusively customary law”.
I have already held that a claim for accounts is not triable by a local court. The next point to consider
is whether the law applicable to the determination of the defence raised is customary law. In my view
it is not. As I understand it the defendant is claiming ownership of the
[p.301] of [1962] 1 GLR 299
farms by purchase (he calls it redemption) from one who bought them at a sale in exercise of a power
of sale contained in a mortgage deed. In my view the law applicable to the decision of these matters
cannot be customary law. I must therefore hold that the local court acted beyond its jurisdiction and I
must uphold counsel’s submission in that regard.
For the above reasons therefore I must allow the appeal and set aside the judgment appealed from.
The plaintiff will have to seek his remedy in the appropriate court.
The defendant-appellant will have the costs of this appeal assessed at 25 guineas.
DECISION
Appeal allowed.
