JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.
As I read and understand the facts and circumstances clear from the record of proceedings, the material data there provided places before us two distinct aspects for our careful consideration.
To my mind, the dictates of primary justice and fair-play make these relatively more important and far-reaching than the purely technical question of whether "leave" was required of the defendant to appeal, and whether he dutifully complied with the mandatory provisions of section 19 (4) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), and sought and obtained that statutory permit to take his case beyond the limits of the District Court Grade II Duayaw-Nkwanta.
The first aspect concerns the question whether there was justness, balance and propriety in the proceedings before the Duayaw-Nkwanta District Court Grade II; while the second has to do with the spirit and intendment, the true meaning and effect of section 19 (4) of Act 372 aforesaid, having relevant regard to the facts and circumstances of this present matter. It is necessary, in my judgment, that whenever section 19 (4) of Act 372 comes to be considered and applied to the incidents of a particular case, regard be had to the rational and dominant trend that, in present-day administration of the law, the courts are slowly, but positively, veering away from technicalities for technicalities' sake; and that they will, therefore, not favour such a narrow and illiberal adherence to technicality as, when followed to its logical hilt, will stultify and destroy substantial justice instead of advancing it. There is ample legal and social justification for this salutary tendency which must be considered essential for the more competent and effective operation of the rule of law in the circumstances of our present legal and social development.
When the parties to a cause or matter place their dispute in the hands of our courts, they do so in the justified expectation that, all the technical rules of procedure notwithstanding, before a decision as to their rights and interests in the matter is pronounced to bind them in law, a sufficiently adequate and exhaustive investigation into the merits and demerits of both the claim and the counter-charge urged in opposition thereto shall, first, have been carried out. It is only when this has been done, and each and both sides have been properly heard on the merits of their rival demands, that the requirements of proper justice, natural equity, and good con
