MENSA BOISON J.: This is an application by the defendant in a land case before the district court asking for an order of transfer of the action to the High Court for hearing on the ground that contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion that the value was ¢80.00, he fixes it at ¢4,000.00.
In a ruling on 17 May 1976 the district court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the action, resting on the fact that at an earlier proceeding on 13 May 1976 the parties had “agreed to the value as being ¢80.00.”
Mr. Kumi for the plaintiff-respondent raises a preliminary objection to the motion, viz. that as there is a subsisting ruling, the defendant-applicant should have appealed from that decision—but not come by way of a fresh motion. The submission is resisted as I see it on two grounds:
Firstly that section 37 (2) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), which gives power to the district magistrate to determine the value of such land, if the value is disputed, requires evidence to be taken. As I see it wh…