WARE vs. OFORI-ATTA & ORS. [1959]DLHC2066

Date	1959-04-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2066

MURPHY J.

REINDORF FOR PLAINTIFF.

AMISSAH FOR DEFENDANTS.

[1959]DLHC2066
																																						<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" >WARE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OFORI-ATTA &amp; ORS. <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 181<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:
10TH APRIL, 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>JUDGMENT OF MURPHY J<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p>In this
judgment the Ghana (Constitution) Order-in-Council, 1957, the Statute Law
(Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1957, and the Ejisu Stool Property Order, 1958, will
be referred to as the Constitution, the Act and the Order respectively.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
Section 31(5) of the Constitution the Supreme Court is vested with original
jurisdiction in cases in which the validity of a law is called in question. The
main ground upon which the validity of the Act is attacked is that it was
passed into law without the requirements of section 35 of the Constitution
having been complied with.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship read the section, and proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has
not been argued on behalf of the defendants that the non-existence of Houses of
Chiefs could excuse non-compliance with section 35 of the Constitution, if the
Bill was one affecting the traditional functions or privileges of a Chief. In
the absence of any express proviso modifying the terms of section 35, it is
clear that no such legislation could be passed until there was a House of
Chiefs to which it could be referred. In any event, the section also provided
for a lapse of three months between the introduction of the Bill and its second
reading, and this requirement was not complied with in the case of the Bill
then under consideration.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question to be answered, then, is whether the Act is one affecting the
traditional functions or privileges of a Chief. In its preamble the Act is
described as “An Act to impose additional penalties upon failure to deliver up
Stool or Skin properties upon the deposition of a Chief.” An examination of the
Act itself shows this to be only a partial description of its purpose. (His
lordship referred to those sections of the Act set out in the Headnote and
proceeded:-)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
comparison of these provisions with previous legislation, to which I shall
refer later, shows that the Act goes farther than merely imposing additional
penalties, as indicated in the preamble, and provides a new procedure for the
custody of Stool property after the deposition of a Chief. Under section 4, the
Minister may authorise any person to take possession of the property; under
section (5(1), he may direct that the property be held by a local government
council; and under section 6, the property may be disposed of in such manner as
he may direct. On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that the custody of
Stool property after the deposition of a Chief is one of the traditional
functions or privileges of another Chief, and that the Act directly affects
these functions or privileges.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>