JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the District Magistrate Grade II, Nkoranza, wherein the plaintiff's action was dismissed for ouster of jurisdiction. The plaintiff sued the defendant at the District Court Grade II, Nkoranza, claiming:
[p.98]
(a) Declaration of title to and recovery of possession of a piece of land at a place called Bepotintinso on Techiman stool land;
(b) Perpetual injunction; and
(c) Damages for trespass.
After the writ of summons had been served on the defendant she filed a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court upon the ground, as disclosed by her supporting affidavit, that the land in dispute at Bepotintinso is "situated at Afrancho on Offinso stool land and not . . . on Techiman stool land as falsely alleged by plaintiff and that the District Court Grade II, Techiman, had therefore, no jurisdiction over the matter. The defendant therefore claimed, that the District Court II Offinso, had jurisdiction to try the case. When the motion came on for hearing the trial magistrate ordered that the disputed land be surveyed and a plan drawn out indicating in which traditional area the Bepotintinso land is situate. After the trial magistrate had heard the surveyor's representative who undertook the survey and tendered the plan, he ruled that the area in dispute lies in Ashanti Region and outside the jurisdiction of the District Court Grade II, Nkoranza, and that his court had therefore no jurisdiction to try the suit. He accordingly, dismissed the action with ¢140.30 assessed costs against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed three grounds of appeal in the following terms:
"(i) The magistrate's ruling was wrong since it was the result of a confusion between regional boundaries and judicial or juridical boundaries: the two are not the same.
(ii) The magistrate erred in basing his decision on a plan which did not show, describe or demarcate the area or district within which the Techiman District Court should operate.
(iii) The magistrate erred in thinking that the area of jurisdiction of his court was determined by regional boundaries as a previous magistrate intended to adopt knowing that the judicial boundary or judicial district or division is not the same as regional boundaries."
Two additional grounds of appeal were filed as follows:
"(1) That the ruling made by the magistrate was wrong in law.
(2) That the case must be sent back to the Techiman District Court Grade II for the new magist
