The following judgment was delivered:-
Strother-Stewart, J.
This is a case in which the defendant-appellant asks for the transfer of a case pending before the Native Tribunal of the Omanhene of Akyem Abuakwa, in which the plaintiff-respondent claims a declaration of right and title to certain lands seized under a writ of Fi. Fa. issued from the Native Tribunal of Adontenhene of Aburi Akwapim in respect of a judgment obtained by the defendant-appellant against the plaintiff-respondent, in the said Native Tribunal of the Adontenhene of Aburi Akwapim.
The defendant-appellant asks for the case to be transferred to the said Native Tribunal of the Adontenhene of Aburi Akwapim in which he obtained his judgment.
The appeal has come to this Court on the refusal of the Provincial Commissioner of the Eastern Province to make an order for such transfer.
The plaintiff-respondent opposes the transfer on the ground that his land is situate at Mfranta in the Akyem Abuakwa District, and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Native Tribunal of the Omanhene of Akyem Abuakwa by virtue of section 43 (2) (c) of the Native Administration Ordinance (Cap. III) as being a suit relating to the ownership, possession or occupation of lands situated within the State of such Paramount Chief.
I cannot agree with the contention of the plaintiff-respondent.
Whilst the suit purports on the face of it to be a case relating to ownership of land, a perusal of the affidavits filed in this appeal show that it is in essence an appeal against a judgment obtained against the plaintiff-respondent by the defendant-appellant, in the Native Tribunal of the Adontenhene of Aburi Akwapim as far back as the 14th December, 1929, and the legal processes consequent on same.
There is no dispute as to whom the land belonged to before it was seized under the writ of Fi.Fa.; plaintiff-respondent claims it is his, and the defendant-appellant in seizing it under his writ of Fi. Fa., seizes it for that very reason. No third party is claiming it. No question of title, properly so called, is therefore involved. The only possible issue would be as to whether it was properly seized under legal process.
I think, therefore, the case is not one which comes within section 43 (2) (f) of the Native Administration Ordinance, and should, in view of the circumstances I have mentioned, come before the Tribunal which gave the judgment, and issued the legal process.
If the plaintiff-respondent is dissatisfied with t
