Foster-Sutton, P. This is an appeal from a judgment of Quashie-Idun, J., in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent claiming a declaration that by three executive decisions, exhibits “ A”, “ B” and “C”, duly validated under The Boundary, Land, Tribute, and Fishery Disputes (Executive Decisions Validation) Ordinance, Chapter 120, the boundary between Agona and Nsuta had been fixed in the manner indicated on the plan exhibit “D” by the line edged pink running from concrete pillar No.5 south to concrete pillar AX.18j26j3.
The defendants admitted that executive decisions “A” and “ B “ had fixed ,the boundary up to the point marked by concrete pillar No.5, but denied that the executive decision “C” fixed the boundary in the manner alleged by the plaintiff and contended that the true boundary runs as indicated on the plan, exhibit “ D”, by the line edged green.
The learned trial Judge held that the boundary between the two cement had been demarcated by the executive decision “ C” and, acting under provisions of section 3 (3) of Chapter 120, he fixed the boundary along the line contended for by the plaintiff, and it is against that decision that the defendants have appealed.
The respondents filed notice of a preliminary objection to the hearing of the on the ground that section 3 (3) of Chapter 120 expressly provides that appeal shall lie from the Courts' decisions in such cases.
Mr. Ollennu, on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the issue in the case not in fact the interpretation of any executive decision, but a dispute as to*Page 418the ownership of land. He contended that exhibit “C” does not purport to demarcate the boundary between the two pillars concerned and that there was therefore nothing for the Court to interpret under Chapter 120.
The relevant portion of exhibit “C” reads as follows:-
“The Aguna-Nsuta- Juaban Boundary which has, so far, been decided up to the point marked X shall thence run in a direct line to the Abutansu Rock on the Dosija-Aguna Road.”
I am unable to accede to the view that exhibit “C” is an executive decision fixing the boundary between the two points indicated by cement pillars on the plan. Both sides agreed that X is represented on the plan by the pillar marked , as AX.18/26/3, but there is nothing to indicate where the line is to commence or the direction it should take on its way to the point referred to as “X” . There is nothing to show that the line is intended to commence at the point at which it is left by exhibits “A” and “B”.
Mr. Akufo-Addo, for the respondent, contended that the whole object of c Chapter 120 was, firstly to validate executive decisions on boundary disputes, and, secondly, to provide machinery for their interpretation when they are vague and uncertain. This is, no doubt, so, but it seems to me that to hold that “C” demarcates a boundary between the two points in question necessitates a flight into the realm of speculation. It does demarcate a boundary from X to the Abutansu Rock on the Dosija-Aguna Road-but not other; although it would appear from the wording of “C” as if there has been an executive decision demarcating the boundary down to X, but there is nothing in the record before us indicating that there is a validated executive decision within the meaning of Chapter 120.
For these reasons I am of the opinion that the preliminary objection fails, and I would accordingly hold that this appeal is properly before us.
Coussey, J.A. I concur. Windsor-Aubrey, J. I concur.
Objection overruled.