JUDGMENT OF ATA-BEDU J.
The defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) has brought this notice of motion under Order 59, r. 4 (1) and (2) of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), for an order of certiorari to have the proceedings and the order of the Circuit Court, Ho, dated 30 April 1971 brought up before this court to be [p.289] quashed on the grounds stated in the affidavit of the applicant and the statutory statements and the order accompanying this application. Leave to issue this notice of motion was granted on 8 July 1971 and not on 21 October 1971 as alleged by counsel for the applicant during his argument.
The facts culminating in this application as disclosed in the copy of the statement exhibited in the applicants affidavit as A and in the argument of counsel for the applicant are that at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and others, proceedings under the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), were commenced at the Asogli Traditional Council, Ho, against applicant then as the Fiaga of Goviefe under the stool name of Togbet Sakrafo IX; the respondent was then acting in his capacity as the head of the Agbo family of Goviefe Kwahu. The proceedings terminated on 6 September 1968 in favour of the respondent and the others. The applicant was ordered by the council to pay assessed costs of ¢442.10 to the respondent and the others on his side. The applicant was later destooled .
Failure of the applicant to pay the said costs of ¢442.10 prompted the respondent to institute an action by a writ of summons at the Circuit Court, Ho, for recovery of the same. The statement of claim accompanying the writ is exhibited in the applicant's affidavit as A. Apart from the statement marked A no other documents were filed by the respondent. On 16 February 1971 an appearance under protest was entered followed by an application alleging that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the writ was irregular within section 46 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81). On 30 April 1971 the Circuit Court, Ho, gave a ruling dismissing the application with costs of ¢10.00 to the respondent and ordering the case to proceed. Exhibited as B in the affidavit of the applicant is the certified copy of the said ruling. It is these proceedings together with the said ruling which are sought to be removed and to be quashed by this court. As rightly contended by cou
