KORSAH C.J.: (His lordship stated the facts, and proceeded)-:
It is obvious that the defendant’s case in answer to the plaintiff’s claims in both cases is based almost exclusively on the issues of law raised in his defence, none of which can be said to be likely to deprive the plaintiff of the benefits derived from the validated judgment of 7th February, 1913 by virtue of section 3 of the Boundary, Land, Tribute and Fishery Disputes (Executive Decisions Validation) Ordinance.
(His lordship read the section as in the headnote, and proceeded:)
With regard to the first of the two suits, viz. No. 2/1952, wherein the claim is for an order for the defendant to carry out the order made on 7th February, 1913, to erect pillars at the defendant’s charge, the learned Judge held that the claim is misconceived. The sentence in the validated judgment reads as follows: “Concrete boundary pillars to be erected at the following points at the charge of Inyinahin.” I agree with the views expressed by the l…