Foster-Sutton, P. This is an appeal against a judgment of Arthur Philip en, Esq Reserve Settlement Commissioner, given in an Enquiry held under provisions of The Forests Ordinance (Cap. 122). The enquiry was held as result of the publication in the Gazette of the Governor's proposal to constitute Esen-Epam Forest Reserve. The notice is dated 11th June, 1936, and was published in the Gazette as Notice No. 38 of 1936. The Reserve Settlement Commissioner then took the action required by section 7 of the Ordinance and a period of three months from the 15th September, 1936, within which any n or native community claiming any right affecting the land or rights over land which it was proposed to constitute a Forest Reserve should send in a .n statement of his or their claim to the Reserve Settlement Commissioner appear before him and state orally the nature and extent of his or their alleged is. Section 7of the Ordinance has since then been amended by section 6 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1949, extending the period within which claims should be submitted or made from “not less than three months” to “not less than six months “, but the period given at the time was in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance.
Commissioner commenced his enquiry on the 25th September, 1951,and
for the purpose of such enquiry he divided the proposed Forest Reserve into two parts, namely Block East, in connection with which there were, at that time, no disputes as to ownership of land, and Block West, in connection with which there were disputed claims which he referred to the Akim Native Court “B” for determination. The order making the reference is dated 13th December, 1951
The Commissioner then completed his enquiry as to Block East and delivered his judgment on that enquiry on the 12th February, 1952.
The land we are concerned with on this appeal is situate in Block East.
The appellant’s claim to ownership of an area of land in Block East was firs brought to the Commissioner's notice on the 29th August, 1952, by an undated letter written by the appellant which was forwarded to the Commissioner b: Mr. Jack, Assistant Conservator of Forests.
The enquiry on Block West was resumed by the Commissioner on the 4tl September, 1952, and during the course of that enquiry he ruled that the enquiry on Block East having been closed, and judgment delivered, he could no entertain the appellant's claim to ownership of land in that area.
Mr. Bossman, on behalf of the appellant, submitted that an enquiry continue until the Commissioner has given a decision on the whole area comprised in the proposed Forest Reserve, that a decision on a portion of such area does not finalise the matter, and that the Commissioner erred in ruling that he could not entertain the appellant's claim. He contended that the Commissioner was required to enquire into the appellant's claim by the provisions of the las1 sentence of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Ordinance, as amended by section 8 of Ordinance No. 21 of 1949. The sub-section reads as follows:-
“Save as is otherwise provided in this section, the Reserve Settlement Commissioner shall enquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of the rights in respect of which he has received any claim under section 7 of this Ordinance, and for the purpose of such enquiry he may divide the proposed Forest Reserve into as many portions of land as he may deem expedient and make a separate enquiry and determination in respect of each such portion. If in the course of any enquiry any other rights affecting the proposed Forest Reserve are alleged to exist or are brought to his notice, the Reserve Settlement Commissioner shall enquire into and determine their existence, nature and extent.”
The sub-section empowers the Reserve Settlement Commissioner, for the purpose of his enquiry, to divide the proposed Forest Reserve into as many portions as he may deem expedient and to make a separate enquiry and determination in respect of each portion, and in my view once the Commissioner has closed his enquiry in respect of any portion and delivered judgment thereon the enquiry must be held to be concluded as regards that portion.
It seems to me that the words “separate enquiry and determination” mean what they would ordinarily imply, that determination means judgment, and if I am right in this conclusion section 13 of the Ordinance, which reads:-
“Every right in or over any land in respect of which no claim has been made under section 7, or of which no knowledge has been acquired at any enquiry, shall be extinguished, unless the claimant shall have satisfied the Reserve Settlement Commissioner before the delivery of his judgment that he had good reason for not preferring his claim within the period fixed under section 7; in which event the Reserve Settlement Commissioner may defer his judgment until he has decided such claim”,
concludes the matter.
It follows that, in my opinion, the ruling of the Commissioner ought to be
upheld. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs fixed at £18 19s. 0d.
Coussey. J.A.. I concur. Windsor,-Aubrey. I. I concur.
Appeal dismissed.