DUALA v. LEMONU

JUDGMENT OF BLAY J.S.C.

[His lordship recited the facts as set out in the headnote and continued:] The appellant's notice of appeal was filed on the 24th May, 1961, and much as I may sympathise with his case, I am afraid that this court is incompetent to grant him any relief, as in my opinion the appeal is not properly before the court.

[p.149]

In my view the order of the 21st April, 1959, from which the appeal purports to have been brought was an interlocutory order made by the court for the purpose of working out the terms of the judgment of the 13th June, 1957, which was the final judgment in the suit between the parties. The court by that judgment decreed that accounts be taken of all rents and mesne profits collected by the appellant and the sums found be paid to the respondent. It did not order the result of the enquiries to be reported to itself before judgment was given. It follows therefore that the result of the enquiries when found became a debt due in respect of the final judgment in the suit. In a suit of this nature, judgment and execution cannot proceed by compartments of the claim. All must stem from the same judgment, see Herbert H. Krakue v. Ohene Kofie Mensah,1 Blay v. Solomon,2 and the cases therein cited, particularly In re Faithful; Ex parte Moore.3 It follows that if the appellant was dissatisfied with the order made on the 21st April, 1959, he should have filed his notice of appeal within fourteen days of that date. Not having done so, the appeal is not properly before the court and must be dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO J.S.C.

I agree.

JUDGMENT OF CRABBE J.S.C.

I also agree.

DECISION

Appeal dismissed with costs.

K. T.