Home » WACA Cases » Ohin Moore V. Akesseh Taye (1932) LJR-WACA

Ohin Moore V. Akesseh Taye (1932) LJR-WACA

Ohin Moore V. Akesseh Taye (1932)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Judgment of Native Tribunal—Leave to appeal granted though no payment or deposit of costs under section 77 (2) of the Native Administration Ordinance—Court without jurisdiction to hear appeal.

Facts

On the 28th of August, 1931, the Native Tribunal of the Paramount Chief o Western Nzima in the Western Province gave judgment in favour of the defendant and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendant. On the 9th of September, 1931, the plaintiff obtained conditional leave to appeal to the Provincial Commissioner from this judgment and on the 14th of September, 1931, final leave was granted. Up to that date the defendant’s costs had not been paid in compliance with the judgment.

On the appeal coming on for hearing before the Provincial Commissioner on the 10th of December, 1931, objection was taken by Counsel for the defendant that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on the ground that the order granting leave to appeal was irregular, the costs of the defendant in the Court below not having been paid into the Tribunal, nor had any sum of money sufficient to cover such costs been deposited as required by section 77 (2) of the Native Administration Ordinance.

The Provincial Commissioner, however, overruled the objection, and ordered that the plaintiff should at once pay the amount of the costs into his Court, and upon such costs having been paid proceeded to hear the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Native Tribunal, and entered judgment for the plaintiff with costs.

Held

On appeal to the West African Court of Appeal, held, (Howes J. dissenting) that the provisions of section 77 (2) of the Native Administration Ordinance not having been complied with by the plaintiff at the time when leave to appeal was granted by the Native Tribunal, the appeal was not properly before the Provincial Commissioner and his order was ultra vires.


The judgment of the Provincial Commissioner was therefore set aside and the judgment of the Native Tribunal restored.

More Posts

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawGlobal Hub is your innovative global resource of law and more. We ensure easy accessibility to the laws of countries around the world, among others