OMENYO v. POKU AND ANOTHER

This is an appeal from the decision of the Wenchi Local Court, sitting at Wenchi, and dated the 5th May, 1960. The claim by the plaintiff is for a declaration of title to a piece of land situate at a place called Korkrompe. When the case was before the local court for hearing on the first adjourned date the defendants did not turn up. They sent a letter to the court per a bearer asking for an adjournment; the reason for the application was that the first defendant had lost his father and therefore had to attend a funeral. The letter of application was signed by both defendants. The court considered the application and refused it and proceeded to hear the case in the absence of the defendants. It heard the evidence of the plaintiff and gave judgment for the plaintiff on his claim.

The defendants have appealed to this court and at the hearing of the appeal counsel for the appellants sought leave of this court to argue two supplementary grounds, even though he had not filed those grounds. Counsel for the respondent did not oppose this application and this court gave counsel leave to argue the grounds. Counsel for the appellants first argued ground 1 of the original grounds of appeal. This ground in effect is that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, the subject-matter of the suit being land situate at a place in the Techiman local authority area and not in the Wenchi local authority area. Counsel conceded the point that the local court magistrate who heard this case also sat at Techiman and heard cases there; counsel failed to produce any order to this court showing the particular area to which Korkrompe belonged. I have examined the writ closely and I find that this land is stated as being on Wenchi stool land. There is nothing on record to show that the fact that Korkrompe was not within the jurisdiction of the trial court, was even brought to the court's notice. In the absence from the record of this alleged existing fact I hold that the court of trial rightly exercised its jurisdiction in hearing and determining the case, and this ground of appeal should fail.

Counsel next argued one of his supplementary grounds, that the court of trial did not give the defendants fair chance to defend their suit and relied strongly on the court's refusal to grant the adjournment on the application of the defendants. Counsel contended that the trial court did not exercise its discretion judicially and that the trial court failed to consider the te