Appeal Court. 24 April. 1936.
Case Stated by High Court
Claim for damages for trespass
to land and for an injunction-I
interpretation of section
9 (b) of the Protectorate
Courts Ordinance,
1933" Title to land or any
interest therein."
Held: The words" suits which
raise any issue as to the title
to land or any interest therein
n
mean" suits which raise any
issue as to the title to land or
as to the title to any interest
therein," i.e. in land.
E.
]. A. Taylor (with him O.
Alakija and I. O.
C. Martins) for
plaintiff.
W. Wells Palmer
for defendants.
The following joint opinion was
delivered :-
KINGDON, c.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST, AND WEBBER,
C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
The point submitted for the
consideration of this Court is
whether in section 9
(b)
of the Protectorate Courts
Ordinance, 1933, the words"
title to land or any interest
therein Of mean" title to land
or any interest in the title to
land Of or, " title to land or
any interest in land."
The whole clause reads as
follows :-
•• (b) except in so far
as the Governor may by Order in
Council otherwise direct, and
except in suits transferred to
the High Court under the
provisions of section 25 of the
Native Courts Ordinance. 1933,
the High Court shall not
exercise original jurisdiction
in suits which raise any issue
as to the title to land or any
interest therein in cases in
which the suit is subject to the
jurisdiction of a native
court."
We have no hesitation in saying
that the ordinary interpretation
which would be put upon the
words in question by the
ordinary man reading them is the
second of the two alternatives
submitted to us. The only reason
that doubt was thrown upon this
interpretation in the Court
below was owing to reference
being made to a decision of the
Divisional Court in England in
1902 in the case of
The King v. French and Others
(1902 1 K.B. p. 637) the report
of which was not available to
the Court below. Reference to
that case shows that it does
not
suggest by analogy the former of
the two alternative
interpretations submitted to us
and this interpretation
therefore need not be further
considered. That case however
does suggest a meaning to
paragraph 9
(b)
of our Ordinance which we think
it desirable to place on record.
In the case of
Rex v. French
the Court held that the words"
any question shall arise
as to the title to any lands,
tenements or hereditaments, or
any interest therein or accruing
therefore" meant "any
question shall arise as to the
title to any lands, tenements or
hereditaments,
or as to the title to any
interest therein or accruing
therefrom."
On the analogy of this case the
words in section 9
(b)
of Ordinance No. 45 of 1933, "
suits which raise any issue as
to the title to land or
any interest therein" mean "
suits which raise any issue as
to the title to land or as to
the title to any interest
therein," i.e. in land; and we
think that this is the meaning
which they must be held to have.
We answer the question submitted
to us accordingly.
The following Order was made
:-
The defendants are awarded costs
in this Court against the
plaintiff assessed at ten
guineas .