OLLENNU J.: (His lordship stated the history of the matter, and proceeded-)
Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted
(1) that it is against all principles of justice that one set of people should adjudicate and decide upon a case, and another set implement the decision, and
(2) that there were two Aworoso-Oworobong foot-paths, and there is nothing to show that any evidence was taken to show that the old foot-path is the one which the Beponghene and his elders awarded as the boundary.
On the first point Counsel submitted that when the Beponghene went on the land to lay down the boundary, he was not accompanied by any of his elders who had assisted him at the arbitration, but by a new set of people, and therefore what the Beponghene did on the land was a nullity. But I do not agree with the submission in the first ground of appeal, which in my opinion is misconceived. Once a Court has given a decision in a case it becomes functus officio.
The implementation of the decision does not imply …