<p>KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, BANNERMAN AND DOORLY, JJ.</p><p>The Court is asked its opinion on the following two questions: - (1) Is a case ousted from coming within the jurisdiction of a Paramount Chief's Tribunal under section 48 (2) (c) and (f) of the Native Administration Ordinance by the mere fact that some, or all, of the property, real or personal, has been devised by a Will ?</p><p>(2) Have I, on the facts stated in the present case, jurisdiction to try it?</p><p>The first question is put in wide and general terms, far wider than the question which arises in the present case. We answer it in the negative. </p><p>The question in this and similar cases turns on one of fact to be decided by the trial Judge on the particular facts of each individual case-Does it appear from the nature of the transaction out of which the cause or matter shall have arisen that the parties expressly or by implication agreed that their obligation in connection with the transaction should be regulated substantially in accordance with English law?</p><p>The answer to the learned trial Judge's second question is therefore- </p><p>If you decide the facts so as to answer the above- question in the affirmative, the answer to your question is in the affirmative. </p><p>If you decide the facts so as to answer the above question in the negative, the answer to your question is in the negative.</p><p>It is ordered that the costs of all parties upon this case stated shall be costs in the cause. They are assessed at fifteen guineas in the case of each party.</p>