OLATIBOYE vs. CAPTAN [1968]DLHC15093

Date	1968-02-12
Suit No.	[1968] GLR 146
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC15093

AMISSAH J.A.

J. C. Armah for the plaintiff.

P. A. Adjetey for the defendant.

[1968]DLHC15093
																																						<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" >OLATIBOYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CAPTAN<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

[1968] GLR 146 &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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:12 FEBRUARY
1968<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>J. C. Armah for the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

P. A. Adjetey
for the defendant.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

AMISSAH
J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0in;text-align:justify">JUDGMENT OF AMISSAH
J.A.<o:p></o:p></h2>The
plaintiff has brought this action to recover the sum of N¢14, 250.00 being the
value of diamonds which he said he sold to the defendant which the latter has
refused to pay. The defendant denies the sale. Mr. Adjetey has raised a
preliminary point on the defendant’s behalf which counsel says will quickly put
and end to the controversy without going through a full scale trial on the
merits. The contract of sale, if there was one, which is denied, is said to be
unenforceable because it was founded on an illegality which the plaintiff
cannot avoid relying upon if he is to succeed in his action.<o:p></o:p>That
the court will not assist a plaintiff to recover on an illegal contract is
sound law: see per Lord Mansfield C.J. in Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341
at p. 343 and Ramia v. Chiavelli [1967] G.L.R.
737. The illegality complained of in the instant case is that the plaintiff
has in selling diamonds contravened the provisions of the Diamond
Mining Industry Protection Ordinance,
Cap. 152 (1951 Rev.), which forbids the sale of diamonds without a licence. It is not
averred in the statement of claim that the plaintiff had a diamond seller’s
licence. What is averred is that he had a diamond digging licence under which
he won the diamonds. This licence however was admitted to have expired
at the time that the sale took place. There had been no time to renew it before the
sale. Mr. Adjetey’s submission is that if the sale was conducted under the authority of the digging licence, then on the plaintiff’s own
showing, the authority was exhausted at the material time. But in any event a
digging licence is not the same as a diamond selling licence without which no
legal sale of diamonds can take place.<o:p></o:p>In answer to this submission, Mr. Armah for
the plaintiff has argued firstly that if some illegality arises in connection with the procedure on the sale of diamonds
then this cannot be determined before the evidence has been heard. Whether the
plaintiff was armed with the appropriate licence or not at the time of the sale
is a matter whi</main>