BRUCE vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1967]DLCA1472

Date	1967-11-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLCA1472

VAN LARE AG.C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.

BENJAMIN (DJABANOR WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.

GAVIN SCOTT SENIOR CROWN COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1967]DLCA1472
																																						<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" >BRUCE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY-GENERAL <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 170<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:
25 NOVEMBER
1957.<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">

BENJAMIN (DJABANOR WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

GAVIN SCOTT, SENIOR CROWN COUNSEL, 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">

VAN LARE AG.C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.
AND ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is against a decision given on 18 January 1956 by Smith Ag. J. (as he
then was) whereby he gave judgment for the defendant-respondent (hereafter
referred to as the defendant) against the plaintiff-appellant (hereafter
referred to as the plaintiff) upon the latter’s claim, as follows:<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">“That the
Deportation Order No. 29 of 1944 dated 25 September 1944 made by Order in
Council and purported to have been made under sections 3 and 7 (2) of the Aliens
Ordinance, Cap. 43 of 1936 edition of the Laws of the Gold Coast is null and
void and the said deportation order be revoked, on the grounds: (a) that the
powers conferred under these sections of the Aliens Ordinance apply only to
aliens, but the said Emmanuel Bruce, plaintiff herein, is a native of the Gold
Coast, and is not an alien, and the powers aforementioned had been exercised
ultra vires; (b) that the legislature was wrong in giving its approval to the
said deportation order.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The short
statement of claim filed on behalf of the said plaintiff averred as follows:<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
plaintiff is a British subject by birth in that he was born at Abolove, near
Anyako in the Keta district on 27 March 1887. His father and grandfather are
natives of the Gold Coast.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
equally short statement of defence filed on behalf of the defendant denied
“that the plaintiff is a British subject as alleged in the particulars or at
all, or that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration [sought] or at all.”<o:p></o:p>The issue
which emerged for determination therefore was whether or not the plaintiff was
a British subject, and the burden or onus of proving the affirmative clearly
lay on the said plaintiff. The learned judge after a detailed examination and
consideration of the whole of the evidence made available to him by the
parties, came to a conclusion adverse to the plaintiff, that he had not
discharged the burden or onus which lay upon him, which conclusion he expressed
in his judgment in the following words:<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">“I do not
think the plaintiff has established his case. I appreciate the difficulties
which his counsel has had in the proof of facts of some 60 years and more ago
... In view of the uncertainty of the evidence I do not think the plaintiff has
established his claim, although it is all very borderline. There will be
judgment for the defendant,”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That
conclusion of the learned judge is now sought to be impeached, substantially on
the ground that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence, and it is
therefore the main point in the appeal to determine whether or not upon proper
and careful consideration and assessment of the evidence available before the
learned judge, his conclusion aforesaid can be properly held to be against the
weight of the evidence.<o:p></o:p>In
approaching the task of making that determination it seems necessary to remind
one’s self of the cardinal principles which were appropriately referred to by
Verity C.J. in the case of Payin II v. Anquandah (1947) 12 W.A.C.A. 284 at pp.
287-288 as follows:<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">“[W]e
would bear in mind the well established principles regarding the functions of
an appellate Cou</main>