Chief Kofi Akrasi For Himself And As Representing The Stool And People Of Nyaboe V. Chief Osei Ko Jo For And On Behalf Of The Patriensa Stool (1951)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Jurisdication of the Land Court or Divisional Court—What is an issue relating to ownership, possession or occupation of land triable by the Land Court—Section 20A of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 4) conferring, in certain circumstances, exclusive original jurisdiction on Land Court considered—Effect of counter-claim on jurisdiction of Court where claim originally within jurisdiction of Court and counter-claim outside its jurisdiction.
Facts
The defendant was the appellant. The plaintiff claimed in the Ashanti Divisional Court the sum of £509 as cocoa tribute. He also claimed an order for forfeiture of the defendant’s farm. ,At the trial the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court was challenged on the grounds that the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to try claims relating to the possession or occupation of land. The trial Judge held that a claim for possession or occupation of land was intended to apply where such claims amounted to a dispute which put the title to the land in issue. As the title was not in issue he held the Divisional Court had jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the case.
The defendant filed a counter-claim claiming damages for trespass.
On the appeal Counsel for the defendant argued that the Divisional Court had not jurisdiction; that jurisdiction resided either in a Native Court or the Land Court and submitted that the Divisional Court erred in holding that the wa-ds ” ownership, possession or occupation ” should not be limited to circumstances where the claim involved a decision as to the ownership of the land.
It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that where a claim is made which is not within the jurisdiction of the Court, and a counterclaim is entered which is within its jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Court is restored.
Held
The meaning of the words ” ownership, possession or occupation ” is not limited to claims involving a decision as to the ownership of the land. The claim was that the defendants should be dispossessed after failure to pay tribute, thereby entitling the landlord to re-enter on forfeiture. This was clearly a case relating to the possession or occupation of land, consequently the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. For the purpose of this case it was necessary to decide whether the limits imposed on the jurisdiction of the Land Court ousted its jurisdiction and made the case triable by a Native Court.
The effect of a counter-claim is that where the Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim, the fact that a counter-claim is entered which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court has no effect on the original jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the issue in the case.
Appeal allowed.
