Jurisdiction of Native
Tribunal under the Native
Administration (Colony)
Ordinance-Claim made ,in
Divisional Court for an
account of
£45
lent to Defendant for
trading purposes in
1900-Trial Judge Ordered
that as the amount did not
exceed the jurisdiction viz:
£100 of the' Highest Native
Tribunal of Accra the case
should be heard by such
Tribunal.
Held: That the stage had not
been reached where it would
appear to the Court that the
amount involved did not
exceed £100 as the amount in
course of trading might have
multiplied itself. Appeal
allowed, the order is set
aside and the case was
referred back to the Court
below with the direction
that it should continue the
hearing until the amount at
issue Unascertainable and
then if necessary a similar
order may be made.
I.
Sarkodee Adoo
for Appellant.
J. H. Coussey
for E. C. Quist
for Respondent.
The
following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA,
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD
COAST AND M'CARTHY, J.
The plaintiff caused to
issue in the Divisional
Court, Accra, a writ against
the defendant in the
following terms:-
" The plaintiff claims (1)
to have a full and true
account " of the forty-five
pounds (£45) given by
plaintiff to defendant
"sometime in 1900 for
trading purposes and of
which " defendant paid
to
plaintiff in December, 1940,
the sum of " seventy pounds
(£70) on account, and (2) an
Order for payment to
plaintiff of the balance of
amount which may be " found
due to plaintiff."
It may be remarked that on
the face of it the writ
appears to disclose no cause
of action, but this point
has not been taken and no
doubt can be remedied by a
simple amendment. Upon the
case being called before
Bannerman, J., counsel for
the defendant immediately
submitted that the case was
properly cognizable by a
Native Tribunal under the
provisions of section 48 (1)
and (2) (e) of the
Native Administration
(Colony) Ordinance (Chapter
76} and consequently it was
the duty of the Court to
stop the case
pg
173 before it and refer the
parties to the competent
Tribunal
under the provisions of section 66
of that Ordinance. Counsel for
the plaintiff
made submissions to the contrary
effect. After hearingargument
the learned Judge made the
following Order:
I have no hesitation in
holding that this case is
properly :: within the
jurisdiction of the Native
Tribunal., Both
parties are natives of Accra.
The amount involved does not exceed the
jurisdiction of the Highest
Native Tribunal Accra. Furthermore the
claim is a personal one and -the
" account. to be enquired into
i8 relatively 8peaking "
infinitestil1lal and any
Registrar of a Native Tribunal-
with "a nodding acquaintance
with the elements of arithmetic
•• should be able to understand
and guide the Tribunal. But "
let us assume that this is a
case which comes specifically
"within equity jurisdiction of
this Court. Here I must "sound a
note of warning- that there is
no rule of law•• written or
unwritten-which excludes the
Native Tribunals "from having
cognizance of cases involving
account8. " Indeed, it is clear
that the equity jurisdiction is
expre881y "conferred on Native
Tribunals so long as the amount
" involved does not exceed £100
(see
section 48
ss. 2
(a)
ana
"(b)
of the Native Administration
Ordinance. In my "opinion
section 15 of the Courts
Ordinance is wholly "
inapplicable.
Parties are referred to a
competent Native Tribunal."
We agree with the whole of this
ruling except the one sentence "
The amount involved does not
exceed the jurisdiction of the
Highest Native Tribunal of
Accra", and, it fOllOW8, the
finding and order. Upon this
point of amount we think that
the learned Judge misdirected
himself. In our view there was
nothing before him by which he
could form any opinion a8 to the
amount involved. True, the claim
is for an account of only £45,
but that £45 was " given" (in
the wording of the writ)
forty-one years ago and through
the ups and downs of trading
through boom years and slumps
that £45 may perhaps have been
multiplied many times in
forty-one years or perhaps not
multiplied at all. Noone can say
until at least accounts are
filed and possibly surcharged
and falsified.
Before an Order referring can be
made under section 65 of the
Ordinance, it must appear to the
Court that the matter is one
properly cognizable by a Native
Tribunal. It cannot so appear to
the Court under section 48 (2)
(e)
until it appears that "the debt,
damage or demand does not exceed
one hundred pound8." But, as has
been pointed out, the stage had
not been reached when it could
possibly appear to the Court
that the debt, damage's or demand
did not exceed £100. Therefore
in our opinion the Order of
reference made by the learned
Judge was premature and cannot
stand.
pg173
The appeal is accordingly
allowed and the Order against
which this appeal is brought is
set aside, and the case is
referred back to the Court below
with the direction that it
should continue the hearing of
the case until it shall appear
that the demand does not exceed
one hundred pounds. If and when
it does 80 appear another order
in similar terms can be properly
made.
The appellant is awarded cost
in this Court assessed at £28.
7& lld. In the Court below the
appellant is to have, in any
event, the costs occasioned by
the respondent's premature
submission.
The
remaining costs are to abide the
event, pg174
