NARTER NYABU AND OTHERS v. AGUDU SEBI AND OtHERS

HALL, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the District Commissioner, Ada, dated 9th October, 1929. The proceedings throughout have been terribly confused. On 5th September, 1927, the following appears on the record of the native Tribunal of Ada.

Complainants {(" Tettey Nyabu and three others, Fetish" Priests of Ada. Accused Agudu Sebi and " 66" Others. " )

Charge-For having wilfully did cut down a portion of Okorwhe Okor forest at Goryi in the Ada district and made farm thereon: contrary to native laws and customs (b) to show cause why.

Plea-Not guilty.

On 14th September, 1927, 63 of the accused were fined £3 each, The record does not show what happened to the remainder.

It is perfectly clear that the above was regarded as a Criminal case and indeed it is so, and it is equally clear that no such charge lay under the Native Jurisdiction Ordinance which was the Ordinance in force at that time.

On 10th December, 1927, conditional leave to appeal was granted to appeal from the above convictions and on 6th January, 1928 , final leave was granted.

After this there was a long pause until 3rd May, 1929, when the District Commissioner ordered fresh hearing notices to issue: Again a long pause until 8th October, 1929, when after hearing argument the District Commissioner decided that the case was a land case and therefore outside the jurisdiction of his Court and that the appeal should not have been entertained.

On the same day the Commissioner granted a review and on the following day i.e. 9th October he heard arguments on the review. His judgment thereon concludes :-

"The Court therefore finds that the case as taken in the "Tribunal was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and as such "is null and void. In view thereof the Court orders that all fines " and monies collected by the Tribunal to wit:

"Fines ---------- £18900

" Withdrawal fees ----- 2896

" Cost of Warrants - 52130

£27026

"be returned to the parties concerned. Costs of appeal to be “ taxed."

On 18th December, 1929, the so-called "plaintiffs-appellants" moved for conditional leave to appeal from the decision of the Commissioner on review and on 8th January, 1930, final leave to to appeal was granted. What has happened to this appeal since then until it first came before me quite recently I am unaware.

In the case of Native Tribunal of Elmina per Regent Kobina Ntakudzie v. Alfred Mensah (Div. Court 1921-25 page 43), I laid down what I considered to be the correct procedure in ap