AMETAMEH v. ATAKPLAI III
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU, J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
1960
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the plaintiff sought an injunction and damages for trespass against the defendant concerning an island called Dormellam Kewu. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the defendant was estopped from disputing the plaintiff's ownership and possession of the island due to prior conduct and an arbitration award. The court awarded the plaintiff 100 in damages for trespass. Legal principles were outlined regarding jurisdiction, estoppel by conduct and arbitration, and the circumvention of local court jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU, J.
The claim in this case is for injunction and damages for trespass; and the subject matter is an island called Dormellam Kewu, in the River Volta, in the Klepa Division of Osudoku. The plaintiff pleaded that he is owner in possession of the said island, and that the defendant has wrongfully entered upon his said island and been committing waste by taking and carrying away sand therefrom. In his statement of defence the defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership, possession and occupation of the land; he also denied trespassing on the said island as alleged, and pleaded (1) that the place where he has been taking sand from is about two and a half miles away from the island the subject of the suit, and (2) that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. In reply the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant is estopped (1) by his conduct and (2) by an arbitration award from denying his, the plaintiff 's ownership, possession and occupation of the island.
On the question of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit, counsel for the defendant submitted as a preliminary objection that since the defence has put the plaintiff’s title and possession of the island in issue, the suit is one properly cognizable by a local court, and the court should therefore stop the hearing of the case and refer the parties to a competent local court in compliance with section 55 of the Local Courts Act, No. 23 of 1958. Opposing that submission, counsel for the plaintiff contended that the writ of summons included a claim for perpetual injunction, a relief which the local court is not competent to entertain, and therefore upon the authority of Tackie v. Nelson and Others (12 W.A.C.A. 419) this court has jurisdiction which it should not decline to exercise.
[p.131]
Upon that preliminary point I ruled that at the stage where the point was taken, there was nothing to satisfy me that the suit is one properly cognizable by a local court, and stated that I would give reasons for my said ruling at a later stage.
Having heard the whole evidence and submissions of counsel on both sides I am more confirmed in the opinion than ever that this is not a suit which is properly cognizable by a local court.
In my opinion a prayer for injunction as one of the reliefs sought in a writ of summons does not by itself show that the suit is not one which is properly cognizable by a local court. But where it appears either upon the pleadings or from the whole of the proce