Korsah, J. The plaintiff-respondent instituted action, in the Native Court “B” of Ajumako, for recovery of possession of a piece or parcel of land known as Eku land; the defendant-appellant pleaded that the Native Court “B” of Ajumako had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because the land subject matter of the action is not situated within the Ajumako State. In support of this contention, defendant-appellant tendered in evidence a judgment of the Native Tribunal of Ajumako delivered on 7th June, 1940, in a suit in respect of the same piece of land, in which it is stated;-
“After hearing further evidence on the preliminary objections raised by the defendants that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the suit, since Eku land, lies within the jurisdiction of the Omanhene of Asiam State, this tribunal upholds that objection, and accordingly refers the plaintiffs to the proper tribunal exercising jurisdiction over the land, namely, the tribunal of the Omanhene of Asiam State.”
It is not disputed that the Ajumako State and the Asiam State are two independent native states with a Native Court in each State exercising jurisdiction within the boundaries of their respective States; nor is it disputed that the land subject matter of this appeal is the same Eku land as in the previous suit.
The Native Court “B” of Ajumako without assigning any reasons over- ruled the objection to its jurisdiction and ordered hearing of the suit to proceed. On appeal to the Land Court, the learned Judge rightly held that the judgment of the Native Tribunal of Ajumako delivered on 7th June, 1940, is a judgment in rem. This, in my opinion, settled the status of the land with respect to the jurisdiction of all Native Courts within the Ajumako State, consequently the Native Court “B” of Ajumako State could not give itself jurisdiction over the land contrary to the clear pronouncement of its predecessor, the Native Tribunal of Ajumako State.
In my opinion, the learned Judge of the Court below erred in holding that a judgment in rem is only binding in respect of property situated within the jurisdiction of the Court; the true interpretation of a judgment in rem is that it settles the status of the subject matter of the suit, and is binding on all persons within the jurisdiction of the Court which makes the pronouncement and on the Court or its successors in title. Although such a judgment is not necessarily binding on other independent Courts outside the jurisdiction of the Court which made the pronouncement, yet it would be binding on subjects of other States, while within the State whose Court made the pronouncement.
It has also been contended before this Court that as the former native tribunal of Ajumako had exercised jurisdiction by virtue of the Native Administration Ordinance of 1927, while the Native Court “B” of Ajumako exercises jurisdiction by virtue of Native Courts 1944 Ordinance, the latter Court is not bound by a judgment in rem of its predecessor in title. This contention, however, is clearly untenable, in view of the fact that both Ordinances empowered the said Native Courts to exercise jurisdiction within the prescribed area of the Native State of Ajumako. In the absence of proof that the Ajumako State has acquired new territories embracing the land which had been declared to be outside the State, the new Court could not assume jurisdiction over such land.
I hold that the Court of first instance had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter, and the Land Court was wrong in confirming the decision of that Court on the merits.
The appeal is therefore allowed with costs.
Foster-Sutton, P. I concur. Coussey, J. I concur.
Appeal allowed.