JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.
In this civil proceeding, the petitioner-husband, Isaac Kweku Wilmot (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), a chief engineer attached to the Black Star Line and resident at Takoradi, seeks an order for the dissolution of the marriage between him and his wife, Aba Baffoe Wilmot (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), an Entomologist working at the Ministry of Health, also engaged in a part-time lecturership at the University of Ghana, Legon, and resident in Accra.
Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sekyi Hughes, argued a motion which sought to question the propriety of the proceedings being instituted in the Sekondi Registry of the High Court instead of the Accra Registry and, ultimately, the jurisdiction of the High Court Sekondi. By the same motion, counsel requested this court to transfer the case to Accra for hearing and determination. It became readily apparent that counsel for the applicant based his application on what he conceived to be the proper interpretation of the provisions of Order 5, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.140A). The sole ground for the application [p.524] was that the applicant was residing and carrying on business in Accra. For the purposes of the rules of court, he treats the respondent as the plaintiff and the applicant as the defendant in any civil action. Needless to emphasise, Order 5, r. 1 should be read as amended by the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 1977 (L.I. 1107), and, when it is so read, it becomes crystal clear that short of the substitution of the words "Judicial Division" used in the old rule for the word "Region" the amendment substantially re-enacts the old rule. "Judicial Division" as used in the principal rules meant a judicial division of the Supreme Court established in 1876 and the word "Region" as used in the L.I. 1107, means any region in contemporary Ghana.
In its conceptual sense, the jurisdiction of every court has two major connotations of varying degrees of importance: Firstly, there is the jurisdiction of a court to try well-defined causes and matters. This is the court's substantive jurisdiction. Secondly, there is the jurisdiction with regard to venue. This is its procedural jurisdiction. Order 5, r. 1 unambiguously comprehends both concepts. The rules regarding venue are obviously designed to achieve some measure of convenience in the administration of justice throughout the country. This is the policy rationale behind th
