AKRASHI II vs. OFORI ATTA [1961]DLHC555

Date	1961-06-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC555

OLLENNU J

DR. J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

A. N. E. AMISSAH (SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1961]DLHC555
																																						<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" >

&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AKRASHI II

&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]

[1961] GLR 434

DATE: 29TH JUNE, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

DR.
J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

</div>

OLLENNU J.

</div>

&nbsp;

The first plaintiff Nii Kofi Aktashi II was until the 12th
February, 1957, the Mantse of James Town, Accra, and occupied the James Town
Mantse We. On the said 12th February, he was declared destooled. He disputed
his destoolment and took steps to contest its constitutionality. Meanwhile he
continued to occupy the Mantse We.

On the 31st May, he was ejected from the Mantse We in execution of
an order, the James Town Stool Property (No. 2) Order 19581(1) made under the
Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 19572(2) The other plaintiffs who were
living with him in the Mantse We were also ejected from the Mantse We. In
connection with that process he, the first plaintiff was arrested and charged
before the district magistrate’s court with a criminal offence. The case was subsequently
transferred to the High Court.

At the date of the ejectment of the plaintiffs, there was pending
in the then Supreme Court, a suit instituted by one Nii Kojo Ashamanfro II
Dsasetse of James Town stool and Acting Mantse of James Town for a declaration
that the Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1957, and the orders made
thereunder are invalid. The said suit was determined on the 31st May, 1958 in
favour of the plaintiff therein, and the said Act and the consequential orders
were declared null and void. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court,
the criminal prosecution which was then pending in the High Court was
discontinued.

As a sequel to the judgment declaring the Statute Law (Amendment)
(No. 2) Act, 1957, invalid, Parliament passed the Stool Property (Recovery and
Validation) Act, 19593(3) which among other things validated all acts purported
to have been done under the said Act, or under any order made thereunder and
empowered the Minister to entertain claims and offer compensation for any acts
purported to have been done under the Act or in the attempted enforcement of
any order thereunder.

The first plaintiff availing himself of the provisions of section
8, subsection (2) of the Act of 1959 petitioned the Minister on behalf of himself
and the other plaintiffs for compensation for injuries occasioned to them by
the enforcement of the said order, that is their ejectment, and his arrest and
arraignment before the court on a criminal charge. In reply to his said
petition the first plaintiff received a letter from the Permanent Secretary of
the Ministry to say that “the Minister was unable to accept the claim.” In
consequence of that reply the plaintiffs instituted these proceedings under
Order 54A of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954, praying
for the three declarations set out in the originating summons. Order 54A, rule
2 provides as follows:

“Any person claiming any legal or equitable right in a case where
the determination of the question whether he is entitled to the right depends
upon a question of construction of a statute, may apply by originating summons
for the determination of such question of construction, and for a declaration
as to the right claimed.”

Since the plaintiffs claim that section 8, subsection (2) of the
Stool Property (Recovery and Validation) Act, 1959, gives them right to make a
claim for compensation for any act purported to have been done under the
Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1957, and since a decision on the question
of the said entitlement to make a claim depends upon the construction of the
said section 8, subsection (2), they are in my opinion persons who may take out
an originating summons calling for the interpretation of the said section 8,
for </main>