The following judgments w~re delivered :-
MICHELIN, J ..
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff-Appellant from a judgment of Gardiner-Smith, J., dated the 30th April, 1931 in which he gave judgment for the Defendant-Respondent with costs to be taxea.
In the action brought before the Divisional Court, the PlaintiffAppellant claimed that' a judgment pronounced against him by the body described as the Native Tribunal of Anlo on or about the 12th October, 1928, should be set aside on the grounds :-
(1) That that body had no jurisdiction.
(2) That the proceedings before that body were irregular and contrary to public policy.
(3) That the nature of the suit on the ground of interest and magnitude was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Paramount Chief and otherwise that the proceedings were contrary to natural justice and good conscience and customary law.
That judgment of the 12th October, 1928, arose out of an action before the Native Tribunal of Anlo, presided over by Fia Togbi II, in which the Defendant-Respondent daimed from the Plaintiff-Appellant the sum of £5 as damages for trespass on land situate in Awunaga. Judgment was delivered by the Native Tribunal in favour of the Defendant-Respondent on the 12th October 1928, for £1 and costs. An appeal 'from this judgment was taken by the Plaintiff-Appellant to the Provincial Commissioner, but was apparently struck out, and the action the subject of the present appeal was instituted in the Divsional Court on the 23rd March, 1931.
Eight grounds of appeal were originally filed, but Mr. Renner in arguing the appeal before us, confined his submissions entirely to the first ground, which reads as follows :-
" Because the Court declined jurisdiction not considering what purported to be and constituted the Tribunal which gave the judgment sought to be set aside."
Appeal Cour1:
9 Nov., 19a1
Kugblawe v.
Agboada
Michelin, J.
Kugblawe v. Agboada.
In arguing this ground, he submitted that the whole of the proceedings before the Native Tribunal constituted a farce resulting in a wrong done to the Plaintiff-Appellant. At the hearing before the Native Tribunal the Judges were also witnesses, and the Tribunal was improperly constituted, which was against natural justice. He submitted, therefore, that the Plaintiff-Appellant was justified in coming to the Divisional Court to have the judgment of the Native Tribunal declared to be a nullity. In support of this contention he referred the Court to the judgment of Bea
