NYAME v. YEBOAH

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.

(His lordship stated the history of the matter, and proceeded-)

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted

(1) that it is against all principles of justice that one set of people should adjudicate and decide upon a case, and another set implement the decision, and

(2) that there were two Aworoso-Oworobong foot-paths, and there is nothing to show that any evidence was taken to show that the old foot-path is the one which the Beponghene and his elders awarded as the boundary.

On the first point Counsel submitted that when the Beponghene went on the land to lay down the boundary, he was not accompanied by any of his elders who had assisted him at the arbitration, but by a new set of people, and therefore what the Beponghene did on the land was a nullity. But I do not agree with the submission in the first ground of appeal, which in my opinion is misconceived. Once a Court has given a decision in a case it becomes functus officio.

[p.220]

The implementation of the decision does not imply a reopening of the dispute, or a continuation of the adjudication. All that it means is the carrying of the decision into effect. That is a function which can be performed by any one who knows what the subject of the decision is. For example, if an order is made for possession of land in favour of a plaintiff, that decision of the Court is not implemented by the Judge who made the order; it is the Sheriff who is the proper person to do that. All that is required is that the land described in the order should be properly identified to the Sheriff's Officer by someone who knows that land. But should uncertainty arise as to the identity of the land, that doubt could be resolved (upon proper evidence) by a tribunal different from the one which made the original decision.

In the same way, an award of arbitration need not be implemented by the board of arbitrators themselves. In the instant case it could have been implemented by deputies appointed by the Beponghene, if there were such who could of their own knowledge identify the old foot-path, and demarcate the boundary according to the arbitration award. But what was the evidence? The Beponghene said:-

"I then suggested to depute messengers to inspect the area to allocate for the plaintiff her area which had been enclosed in the defendant's cultivation in dispute. Both refused the appointment of the deputies. I agreed to attend myself for the inspection and fixing the boundary line. We then inspe