TAYLOR ETC. vs. MINISTRY OF HOUSING & ORS. [1959]DLCA2062

Date	1959-02-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA2062

KORSAH C.J.

VAN LARE J.A. AND J.A.

OLLENNU

[1959]DLCA2062
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >TAYLOR ETC. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MINISTRY OF HOUSING &amp; ORS. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 85<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
26TH FEBRUARY, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORSAH C.J., VAN LARE J.A. AND J.A. AND
AND OLLENNU<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, summarised the arguments of counsel, and
proceeded):—<o:p></o:p>There is
no doubt that section 10 of the Ordinance shows an intention of the Legislature
that a Concession should be null and void if due vigilance is not exercised
within the first two years, or within an extension thereof. The question is, on
whose part is that vigilance required by the Ordinance the Claimant, the Court,
or both? In other words, it is the intention of the Legislature that a
“Certificate of Validity” must be granted within the time limit, and that if it
is not so granted the Concession shall become null and void? Or does the Legislature
intend that “final application for the grant of Certificate of Validity must be
made to the Court” within the time limit, leaving it to the Court to deal with
the application at its convenience?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
answer depends entirely upon the interpretation to be placed upon section
10(1)(c) of the Concessions Ordinance, which reads as follows:-<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“10 (1)
..... unless before the expiration of the said period of two years the
applicant has ... (c) made final application to the Court for the grant of
Certificate of Validity.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
language is simple, plain and unambiguous. In my opinion it means exactly what
it says, and is incapable of any interpretation other than what those ordinary
words mean: which is, that the person who is required to be vigilant is “the
applicant,” and the last step which he is required to take in the proceedings
in the exercise of vigilance is that he should “make final application to the
Court for grant of Certificate of Validity.”<o:p></o:p>In my
opinion those words cannot mean”.... unless before the expiration of the two
years the applicant has .... obtained from the Court grant of Certificate of
Validity.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
only where a claimant fails to make final application to the Court within the
time limit that the Court’s jurisdiction to grant him Certificate of Validity
is ousted. But if on, or before, the last day of the time limit, he files
“final application for grant of Certificate of Validity” time ceases to run
against him, the Concession is kept alive and can be validated at any time
thereafter which may be convenient to the Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Therefore,
in my opinion, the learned Judge misdirected himself in ruling that, as the
time for completing all necessary intermediate steps, and making final
application for grant of Certificate of Validity, was extended only to the 3rd
August, he had no jurisdiction on the 7th August to entertain the application
(which had been filed before the said 3rd August) for grant of Certificate of
Validity.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>