NANA OFORI ATTA II. OMANHENE OF AKYEM ABUAKWA AND ANOTHER V. NANA ABU BONSRA II AS ADANSEHENE AND AS REPRESENTING THE STOOL OF ADANSE AND ANOTHER

MAIN JUDGMENT

Nov. 6. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DENNING, who stated the facts set out above and continued:

Everything depends on what took place in the previous proceedings which were heard in the Chief Commissioner’s Court of Ashanti in the year 1940. Their Lordships have found some difficulty in ascertaining the issues in those proceedings because there were no pleadings. The Rules of Court say that suits shall ordinarily be heard and determined in a summary way without pleadings: and this suit was so heard and determined. But it is permissible to look at the opening statements by counsel and at the evidence as well as the judgment. In the case of Kobina Angu v. Cudjoe Attah in 1916¹ Sir Arthur Channell, delivering the judgment of the Board, said that

“the former evidence could be looked at in order to explain what was really the subject-matter of the former dispute.”

Looking at these materials, it becomes clear that on May 6, 1940, Muronam sued Banka in the …