It seems to me that the clear and unambiguous terms, and the obvious meaning, of the order is that the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of 15s. per month as from the end of October 1947, for her maintenance. It is difficult to believe that the learned judge took the view which he expressed because of the fact that the words “to pay” were not expressly inserted in the order. If that was the reason namely, the absence of the words “to pay” in the order of the Native Court, then surely, he overlooked a very well known and oft invoked rule of interpretation in respect of proceedings of native courts and tribunals, a rule which was most impressively expressed by Graham-Paul, C.J. (Sierra Leone) in the case of Okuma v. Tsutsu2(2) where he said: “It has been frequently pointed out that in considering proceedings in Native Tribunals, it is the substance, and not the mere form, that matters.
TULARLEY v. ABAIDOO [1962] 1 GLR 411 [1962] SLR (SC) 21 · Supreme Court · 1962 · ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC
Read it in the judgment