GALL vs. GALL [1965]DLHC1805

Date	1965-04-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1805

ARCHER J.

MISS A.A. AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.

G.M. FRANCOIS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1805
																																						<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" >GALL<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>GALL <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 313<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:
30 APRIL 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">

MISS A.A. AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

G.M. FRANCOIS 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER J.<o:p></o:p>On an ex
parte motion by the applicant in this matter, I ordered provisionally the issue
of an absconding warrant for the arrest of the respondent on 26 April 1965, on
a revelation by counsel for the applicant to the effect that the respondent
would leave the jurisdiction the following morning. At the hearing of the
application I made my views clear as to whether or not the Matrimonial Causes
Act, 1950,1 passed by the United Kingdom Parliament applied in Ghana so as to
enable the applicant to take an originating summons under section 23 of the
said Act for an order of the court enjoining the respondent to pay the
applicant maintenance. Counsel for the applicant argued that the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1950, applied in Ghana because the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937,2
referred to by Order 55 of the Ghana Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954,3 had been repealed in the United Kingdom. Moreover, where the
facts disclosed a case for judicial separation then the application could be
entertained.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
these submissions I reserved my ruling which I now propose to deliver. From the
outset I shall make my opinion clear by saying that the English Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1950, does not apply in Ghana and cannot apply in Ghana for the
following reasons. The present jurisdiction of the Ghana courts in matrimonial causes
is derived from section 154 (3) of the Courts Act, 1960,4 which reads:<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">&nbsp;“Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of
sections 16 and 17 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 4) [which relate to infants
and persons of unsound mind and to probate and matrimonial causes
respectively], those sections shall continue to apply in Ghana until other
provision is made by law, and in so far as section 85 of that Ordinance applied
heretofore in relation to those sections, it shall continue so to apply
notwithstanding its repeal by this Act.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
154 (3) is one of the saving clauses in the Courts Act. Section 17 of the
repealed Courts Ordinance5 reads:<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">“The
jurisdiction hereby conferred upon the Supreme Court in Probate, Divorce and
Matrimonial Causes and proceedings may, subject to this Ordinance and to Rules
of Court, be exercised by the Supreme Court in conformity with the law and
practice for the time being in force in England.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
significant to note that the word “may” is used in section 17 and not the
mandatory word “shall.” Moreover, whatever law and practice may be in force in
England is subject to rules of court made in Ghana. These rules are embodied in
Order 55 of the 1954 High Court Rules. Rule 1 of Order 55 makes specific
reference to the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, and the Supreme Court of
Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925,6 as amended by any subsequent enactment.<o:p></o:p>“The
Acts” are defined to mean the Matrimonial Causes Act 1925 and 1937 but to my
knowledge there has never been passed in the United Kingdom a Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1925. There was a Matrimonial Causes Act, 1923, which was repealed
by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The definition of
“The Acts” in rule 1 is therefore ostensibly wrong.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Secondly,
the Rules Committee signed and made the 1954 Rules including Order 55 on 26 May
1952, when the United Kingdom Matrimonial causes Act, 1950, was already in
operation. On 29 July 1954 they were published as a Supplement to the Gazette.
The Rules Committee were aware of the English 1950 Act when they made the rules
in 1952, yet they did not frame the rules in conformity with the law embodied
in the 1950 Act.<o:p></o:p>