Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 12, 1959
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
On the merits there is no substance in this appeal.
The only ground of appeal which was seriously argued in this second appeal was the additional ground filed on the 9th May, 1959, which reads:
"The judgment of the Native Court is a nullity as the appeal was not heard in accordance with law."
In support of that ground, Counsel relied upon a judgment delivered by me on the 28th April, 1959, in Land Appeal No. 86/57, entitled Krakani v. Agbenoto & anor., in which I interpreted Regulation 129 of the Native Courts (Southern Section of Togoland) Procedure Regulations to mean "that each party must be given an opportunity if necessary to say anything he might wish to urge in support of or against the appeal," and, further, that where on the face of the record of proceedings it appeared that judgment was given against a party to an appeal, whether appellant or respondent, non-compliance with the provisions of the said regulation would make the proceedings before the Native Appeal Court a nullity. Counsel in the present appeal accordingly asked the Court to declare the findings before the Kpandu District Native Appeal Court null and void, as it does not appear that the appellant was given a hearing before his appeal was dismissed.
There is, however, also the judgment delivered by me on the 30th April, 1959 in Land Appeal No. 168/58, entitled Anago & ors. v. Avudega III. In that case I stated:
"In my opinion the word 'heard' in the regulation should be interpreted to include 'reading written arguments' as well as hearing oral arguments."
The appellant therein having in fact filed exhaustive written arguments of his appeal, and the Native Appeal Court having given due [p.224] consideration to those written arguments before dismissing his appeal, I held that there had been sufficient compliance with the provisions of the said regulation.
In my opinion the present appeal cannot be distinguished from that case. The lengthy document filed by the appellant went far beyond mere "detailed grounds of appeal;" it stated the detailed grounds of appeal, and then argued each such detailed ground of appeal in full. Thus the appellant may properly be said to have argued very fully and exhaustively in support of his appeal; and the respondent, on his side, replied to those arguments in writing.
At the same time, where a party states that he relies upon grounds of appeal which he has filed and/or upon written argument, and does not wish to make oral
AI Generated Summary
Delivering judgment in a second appeal, OLLENNU J. addressed whether the Kpandu District Native Appeal Court’s proceedings were a nullity for not "hearing" the appeal in accordance with Regulation 129 of the Native Courts (Southern Section of Togoland) Procedure Regulations. Counsel relied on Krakani v. Agbenoto & anor. to argue that non-compliance would invalidate the proceedings. The judge, however, invoked his later decision in Anago & ors. v. Avudega III., clarifying that "heard" includes reading written arguments. The appealing party had filed a lengthy document fully arguing each ground, and the opposing party replied in writing; the Native Appeal Court considered those submissions. Although the record did not note a waiver of oral submissions, the judge treated this as a technical omission rather than a miscarriage of justice. He concluded that Regulation 129 was satisfied and dismissed the appeal with costs.