DANAWI & SONS vs. DAKO [1961]DLSC881

Date	1961-01-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC881

KORSAH JSC

C.J. GRANVILLE SHARP JSC

AKIWUMI JSC

E. AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANTS

E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC881
																																						<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;[SUPREME COURT]

[1961] GLR 72

DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 1961.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

E.
AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE APPELLANTS.

</div>

KORSAH, C.J. GRANVILLE SHARP
AND AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

Sarkodee-Adoo, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. This is
an appeal from the ruling of Smith, J. dated the 19th March, 19581(1) making an
order of certiorari quashing the order of the district magistrate dated the 9th
November, 1955, for the sale of house No. D727/4, and also the certificate of
purchase dated the 9th November, 1955, of the said premises.

“The applicant Lako, with his sisters, owned land at Tudu, Accra,
on which there was formerly a building known as D.727/4. By letter dated 7th
April, 1947, he requested the Accra Town Council to send all notices about
rates to him at his address in Koforidua. This letter was acknowledged. On the
9th November, 1955, the town clerk at Accra brought a motion ex parte before
the district magistrate, Accra for an order for the sale of certain houses (one
of which was the applicant’s) for which the rates had not been paid. The
magistrate made an order for sale and the respondents bought the land in
question on 31st May, 1956, and were granted a certificate of purchase on 22nd
June, 1956. It was admitted by the Accra Municipal Council that the town clerk
of the council had not sent the applicant a registered letter demanding payment
of the rate due, which he was bound to do in accordance with section 20 of
Schedule 5 of the Municipal Councils Ordinance No. 9 of 1953. The result was
that the applicant was given no opportunity to pay the small outstanding sum of
£G1 17s., and the court’s order of sale and the actual sale of the land took
place without his knowledge.”

The applicant therefore brought these proceedings by certiorari
for the said order.

By a ruling of Windsor-Aubrey, J. dated the 24th May, 19572(2),
the applicant was granted an order of enlargement of time for applying for
leave to apply for an order of certiorari or mandamus concerning the said order
of the district magistrate, Accra. An appeal from the said order to the Court
of Appeal was dismissed on the 28th October, 19573(3) on the ground that the
order appealed from does not fall within the ambit of section 3 of the West
African Court of Appeal Ordinance4(4) and that the court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal. Subsequent to this dismissal the application for an order
of certiorari or in the alternative for an order of mandamus came before the
court pursuant to the leave dated the 11th December, 1957, on the 31st January,
1958, when it was argued on that date and on subsequent dates, and the said
ruling appealed from was delivered accordingly. For the purpose of this
judgment, with reference to the grounds of appeal filed, learned counsel for
the appellant intimated at the outset that he would argue grounds 1, 2(c), (d)
and (e) but restricted his argument to ground 1 which reads as follows:

In support of this ground, learned counsel submitted that the said
order of Windsor-Aubrey, J., granting extension of time was invalid in that the
court had no jurisdiction to extend the time, and referred to Order 59, rule 3
and Order 64, rule 6 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954,
which was as follows: