TSIBOE vs. KUMASI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [1959]DLHC2064

Date	1959-06-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2064

MURPHY J.

REINDORF FOR PLAINTIFF.

AMISSAH FOR DEFENDANT.

(THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN FULL SO FAR AS IT DEALS WITH QUESTIONS OF LAW TO COMPLETE THE

PICTURE THE LEARNED JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BUT IN ABRIDGED FORM.)

[1959]DLHC2064
																																						<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" >TSIBOE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KUMASI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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 253<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:
6TH JUNE, 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">

REINDORF
FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></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">

MURPHY J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGEMENT OF MURPHY J<o:p></o:p>I will
deal first with the defendants’ submission that this suit was instituted out of
time. The demolition took place on the 2nd December, 1957, and the writ in this
case was issued on the 16th July, 1958.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants rely on section 2 of the Public Officers’ Protection Ordinance, the
relevant part of 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">“2. Where
any action, prosecution, or other proceedings is commenced against any person
for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any
ordinance or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged
neglect or default in the execution of any such Ordinance, duty, or authority,
the following provisions shall have effect— <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">(1) The
action, prosecution or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is
commenced within three months next after the act, neglect, or default
complained of, or in case of a continuance of injury or damage, within three
months next after the ceasing thereof:”<o:p></o:p>“Person”
is defined in section 3 (1) of the Interpretation Act, 1957, as including “any
company or association or body of persons corporate or incorporate”. On the
face of it, therefore, the section would seem to apply to a municipal council.<o:p></o:p>However,
section 150 of the Municipal Council’s Ordinance, 1953, which is a later
enactment than the Public Officers Protection Ordinance, 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">“150.
When any suit is commenced against a Council for any act done in pursuance or
execution or intended execution of an ordinance or of any public duty or
authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of
any such Ordinance, duty or authority, such suit shall not lie or be instituted
unless it is commenced within twelve months next after the act, neglect or
default complained of, or in the case of a continuance of damage or injury,
within twelve months next after the ceasing thereof”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Various
enactments are repealed by section 169 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance, but
these do not include the Public Officers’ Protection Ordinance.<o:p></o:p>On behalf
of the defendant it has been submitted firstly, that section 2 of the Public
Officers Protection Ordinance reproduces (except for a difference in the period
of limitation) section 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, which
has been held to apply to municipal corporations. Next it has been submitted
that the use of the word “Officers” in the ti</main>