ASIN APIMANIM LOCAL COUNCIL vs. WILLIAMSON [1965]DLHC1781

Date	1965-01-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1781

LASSEY J.

F. SARKODEE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANTS.

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1781
																																						<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" >ASIN APIMANIM LOCAL COUNCIL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;WILLIAMSON <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 18<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:
29 JANUARY 1965.<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">

F. SARKODEE, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal poses two important legal questions. The first point of law concerns the
jurisdiction of the Asin Local Court before which the plaintiff’s action was
commenced and tried, and the second point concerns whether or not money paid
under a mistake of law or of fact or of mixed fact and law is recoverable. I
propose to deal first with the question regarding the jurisdiction of the local
court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs’ claim before the Asin Local Court was for the recovery of the sum
of £G28, being the difference in an overpayment in salary wrongly paid to the
defendant. The defendant was at the material time when money was paid to him
employed by the Apimanim Local Council. He was the council’s nurse and was paid
his salaries from the council’s votes. He was on an annual salary of £G301.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sackey, submitted that as the plaintiffs,
namely, the Asin Apimanim Local Council, were at the material time of the trial
before the local court a government department within the meaning of section 96
(2) of the Courts Act, 19601 the local court did not have jurisdiction to
entertain the plaintiffs action. [His lordship here read the provisions of
section 96 (2) of the Courts Act, 1960, as set out in the headnote and
continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It cannot
be disputed that local councils which are created by statute are bodies through
which the executive power of the State is exercised in the locality of the
particular local council. Furthermore, the sum of £G28 which is being claimed
in the present action, is part of the funds allocated to the Asin Apimanim
Local Council by the Central Government to pay the salaries of its staff and
for the general running of the council’s affairs. As that fund as to be paid
into the Consolidated Fund of the Government or State it is clear from the
combined effect of articles 29 (2) and 51 (1) of the Constitution2 that the
local court could not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in
dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
state attorney for the appellants does not seem to seriously resist this
argument that the local court had no jurisdiction to try the issues involved in
this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion. by virtue of section 96 (2) of C.A. 9 the plaintiffs being a
government department, and the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, the £G28
sought to be recovered, also being part of the Consolidated Fund, the
jurisdiction of the local court is entirely ousted and the proceedings
terminating in the judgment given by the local court in favour of the
plaintiffs on 5 March 1964 are a nullity and are void. It follows therefore
that the proceedings before the circuit court by way of an appeal from the
judgment of the local court are also null and void, as the decision of the
circuit judge given in his appellate capacity was the result of the null
proceedings in which the local court acted without jurisdiction. In my view the
decision of the circuit judge given on 15 July 1964, setting aside the judgment
of the lower court with ten guineas costs for the appellant is also void and of
no effect.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>