Judgements

HIGH COURT, KUMASI DATE: 10TH APRIL, 1959. BEFORE: MURPHY J. CASES REFERRED TO (1) Hodge v. The Queen (9 App. Cas. 117); (2) Russell v. The Queen (7 App. Cas. 829). COUNSEL Reindorf for plaintiff. Amissah for defendants. [p.183] of [1959] GLR 181 JUDGMENT OF MURPHY J (His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-) In […]

COURT OF APPEAL DATE: 2ND APRIL, 1959. BEFORE: KORSAH C.J., ACOLATSE J. AND SMITH J. CASES REFERRED TO (1) Kwamin v. Kufuor (Renner, vol., 1 pt. 2, p. 808); (2) Antu v. Buedu (F.C. 1926-1929, p. 474); (3) Ntrama v. Attia and anor. (1 W.A.L.R. 94); (4) Ababio and ors. v. Darkwa and ors. (1

Division: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Date: 23RD MARCH, 1959. Before: KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL J. B. Danquah for appellant. There were two actions. The first having been dismissed in our favour, we have not appealed therefrom, except as to costs. The second is for recovery of possession;

Division: IN THE HIGH COURT (LANDS DIVISION), ACCRA Date: 20TH MARCH, 1959. Before: OLLENNU J. JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J. (His lordship dealt with, and dismissed, a preliminary objection to the appeal, and continued:–) Now the issue which was tried by the Native Court involved: (1) a question of fact, and (2) a question of law,

Division: IN THE HIGH COURT, KUMASI Date: 20TH MARCH, 1959. Before: MURPHY J.   JUDGMENT OF MURPHY J. (His Lordship stated the facts and proceeded): – I do not consider there is any substance in the submission that this action, being one for slander, should have filed because there was no proof of special damage.

COURT OF APPEAL DATE: 16TH MARCH, 1959. BEFORE:KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A. AND OLLENNU J. COUNSEL Koranteng Addow was heard for Appellant (Kwame Frempong). Dr. Danquah for Respondent (Afua Taa) not called on to argue. [p.130] of [1959] GLR 128 JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J Korsah C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court. There is no

Division: IN THE HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST Date: 10TH MARCH, 1959 Before: ADUMUA BOSSMAN J. JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J. (His lordship referred to the pleadings, and continued):- The primary question for determination would appear to be whether either the plaintiff s arrest and detention, or his subsequent prosecution, was at the instance of the Agent

HIGH COURT, HO DATE: 4TH MARCH, 1959 BEFORE: MR. COMMISSIONER MINNOW COUNSEL Arthur for petitioner (wife). Coussey for respondent (husband). JUDGMENT OF MR. COMMISSIONER MINNOW In this matter the petitioner, who prays for restitution of conjugal rights, alleges that she and the respondent are man and wife, married under the Marriage Ordinance. It appears that

COURT OF APPEAL DATE: 3RD MARCH, 1959. BEFORE: KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J. COUNSEL Lassey for appellant. The judge was wrong in holding that the interest charged was excessive. In the cocoa areas it is the practice to regard the giving of cocoa farms as security to mean that the land only

Division: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Date: 3RD MARCH, 1959. Before: KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A., AND OLLENNU J. JUDGMENT OF KORSAH C.J. Korsah C.J. delivered the judgment of the Court: The only ground argued before us in this appeal is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence. The findings are that the