ADDO v. SABRAH (No. 2) [1968] GLR 233
15 March 1968 · CHARLES CRABBE J · ≈ 3 min read
[1968] SLR (HC) 4Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: HIGH COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 15 MARCH 1968
BEFORE: CHARLES CRABBE J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
RULING on application for review of the decision in Addo v. Sabrah [1968] G.L.R. 154. The facts are sufficiently set out in the ruling.
COUNSEL
Koi Larbi for the plaintiff.
Swaniker for the defendant.
JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.
In this application brought under Order 39, r. 1 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), I am asked to review my ruling in Addo v. Sabrah [1968] G.L.R. 154 dated 14 February 1968 to the effect that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the ejection of a tenant under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). In that ruling I had considered the provisions of paragraphs 27 and 49 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84). The plaintiff in this case has, for the purposes of the review, sworn to an affidavit in which he has stated:
“That since the ruling of the learned trial judge on 14 February 1968 as aforesaid my counsel after the exercise of due diligence has been able to discover the law pertinent to the issue; and that my counsel was not then aware of paragraph 56 of the Courts Decree. 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), which if he had brought it [p.234] of [1968] GLR 233 to the notice of the court the ruling of the learned judge would have been in my favour.”
This paragraph 56 of the Courts Decree, 1966, is in the following terms:
“No jurisdiction conferred upon any District Court shall in any way restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court or a Circuit Court and each of those Courts shall have in all causes and matters, civil and criminal, an original jurisdiction concurrent with the jurisdiction of a District Court.” There can be no doubt about this. The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, an original jurisdiction concurrent with that of the district court. If, therefore, the district court, under paragraph 49 (1) (d) of the Courts Decree, 1966, has jurisdiction, “in all civil matters relating to the landlord or tenant of any premises or any person interested in such premises as required or authorised by or under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220)”; then the High Court has an original jurisdiction to deal with such matter. I therefore grant the review and vary the previous ruling of this court by the substitution, for the last seven paragraphs of that ruling, of the following paragraph: “The effect of this is that if there is any enactment which confers specific jurisdiction on any court or authority or body the High Court is precluded from dealing with the matter, save, perhaps, on an appeal. For the purposes of the instant case paragraphs 27 and 49 of the Courts Decree, 1966, must be read and construed together. Not only that. One has to read paragraph 56 of the Court Decree which is in the following terms: ‘No jurisdiction conferred upon any District Court shall in any way restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court or a Circuit Court and each of those Courts shall have in all causes and matters, civil and criminal, an original jurisdiction concurrent with the jurisdiction of a District Court’.” There is no ambiguity about this paragraph. I come to the conclusion, therefore, that the High Court has jurisdiction in all civil matters relating to the landlord or tenant of any premises or any person interested in such premises as required or authorised by or under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220). I award cost of N¢50 against the defendant.
DECISION
Review granted.
S. K. T
