JOHN HOLT AND CO. LTD v. CHRISTOPH NUTSUGAH
1931
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
- Sir george Campbell Deane, Chief Justice
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- Criminal Law and Procedure
1931
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Sir George Campbell Deane, Chief Justice, addressed two strands of proceedings. First, plaintiffs sought to enforce a judgment they had obtained against the defendant from a French court sitting at Cotonou in Dahomey. The defendant argued the foreign judgment was not final because an appeal was pending, and that it offended natural justice because it had been entered by default without notice or a chance to be heard; the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court, and certified copies of both the original and appellate French judgments, the latter dated 5 February 1930, were produced. Secondly, Deane CJ discussed charges related to breaking an oath sworn in the name of the Omanhene, concluding that the labourers had not sworn any oath, that their imprisonment lacked justification, and ultimately that the conviction was right and the appeal was dismissed.
Deane, Chief Justice.
In this action the plaintiffs sued the defendant in the District Commissioner's Court at Keta on 24th October, 1928, on a judgment obtained by plaintiffs against defendant before a French Court sitting at a place called Cotonou in Dahomey on 28th March, 1928.
The defendant pleaded that the judgment was not final inasmuch as an appeal was pending and also counterclaimed. He also claimed that the judgment was contrary to natural justice, inasmuch as it had been given against him without previous notice and without giving him a chance of being heard. The case was transferred to the Divisional Court as being beyond the jurisdiction.
It turned out that an appeal was in fact pending with regard to the judgment which had been obtained in the first instance by default and the matter apparently stood down for the result of the appeal to be known. Certified copies of two judgments of the French Court have now been put in evidence, the appeal judgment being dated 5th February, 1930.
The same considerations apply mutatis mutandis to the case of a man charged with breaking his own oath lawfully sworn in the name of the Omanhene. As to this, however, all that I need say is that it is not even contended that these labourers ever swore any oath so as to break it and they certainly cannot be held responsible if the farmer broke his oath. It follows that no justification of any kind, has been made out for the imprisonment of these men who were carrying on their perfectly lawful business that night. That being so, I find that the conviction was right and dismiss the appeal.