COOK V. KUTSOATSI AND OTHERS

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J.: (His lordship referred to the facts and continued):

It is the sale in the foregoing circumstances which plaintiff’s counsel contends was illegal, because he maintains, the Keta Court had no jurisdiction in respect of the action for debt, and its judgment and all subsequent proceedings were accordingly a nullity. His argument based on section 14 (3) of Cap. 98, is that the defendant was resident, or at any rate was in Saltpond, but not in Keta, when the debt became payable at the time stipulated in the document, and therefore it is the native court having jurisdiction over the Saltpond area which was the court legally and properly entitled, or vested with jurisdiction, to try the case.

It is perhaps unfortunate that such a highly technical expression or phrase as “the cause of action arose” has not been defined or explained in the Native Court Ordinance, Cap. 98, in a layman’s language or in terms simple enough for the understanding of the type of persons, the large m…