OSUMANYAWA YAW EWUA Vs. NANA SIR OFORI ATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal ex parte against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, affirming a judgment of the Chief Justice of the same colony which dismissed an action brought by the appellant against the respondent on the ground that there was no cause of action disclosed. The appellant is a native of the colony and the respondent is President of the Native Tribunal of Akyem Abuakwa. The proceedings in the Native Tribunal are regulated by an ordinance entitled "the Native Administration Ordinance."

(2.) The respondent issued a summons against the appellant alleging that he had contravened Art. 28 of the Ordinance by attempting to undermine the authority of the paramount chief. Nothing so far as appears has actually yet been done under that summons, but the appellant instead of appearing before the Tribunal and pleading that he had not contravened S. 28 raised the present action in the Divisional Court, in which he craves a declaration that the issue of the summons was ultra vires and oppressive and asks for an injunction against the respondent from proceeding further with the case in the Native Court. After service of the summons the appellant applied for an interim injunction, and he put in an affidavit in which he merely repeated ad longum the charges made by the original writ. Before the hearing the appellant tendered another affidavit which again repeated in substance what he had said before, but added a fresh allegation that the respondent before the taking of the process in the Native Court had threatened to and meant to invade the appellant's lands. The Chief Justice refused to receive this second affidavit and gave judgment against the appellant, holding that no cause of action was disclosed. His judgment was very much wrapped up in allusions to procedure and did not proceed on the simple ground which was open to him.

(3.) On appeal the appellant made no motion to amend his writ of summons. The learned Judges of the Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, and Hall, J., explicitly said that he was content to assume that the second affidavit was before the Court.