OHENE vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE [1970]DLHC2140

Date	1970-12-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2140

HAYFRON- BENJAMIN J.

E. N .MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

N. M. C. DODOO PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1970]DLHC2140
																																						<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" >OHENE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE<o:p></o:p>&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; [HIGH COURT, ACCRA]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&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;[1971] 1 GLR 102<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:
1 DECEMBER 1970.<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">

E. N .MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

N. M. C. DODOO, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
DEFENDANT. <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">

HAYFRON- BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN. J<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff by his writ of summons claims a declaration that a society operating
under section 9 (1) and (2) of the Lotteries and Betting Act, 1960 (Act 31),
does not require the permission of the Ministry of Finance to operate a
lottery. He claims in the alternative that the withdrawal of the society’s
licence to operate a lottery under section 9 (1) and (2) of the Act is invalid
as being contrary to article 173 of the Constitution 1969. The claims are being
made against the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance. At the outset a
preliminary point of practice and procedure has to be settled, and it is
whether or not a principal secretary of a Ministry or more specifically, the
Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Finance is a proper party to the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Section
10 (2) of the State Proceedings Act, 1961 (Act 51), provides that: “Civil
proceedings against the Republic may be instituted against the
Attorney-General, or any officer authorised in that behalf by him, or any
officer specified in that behalf under any law for the time being in force,”
Section 12 further provides that:<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">“All
documents required to be served on the Republic for the purpose of or in
connection with civil proceedings by or against the Republic shall be delivered
at the office of the Attorney-General or to any officer specified in that
behalf under any law for the time being in force.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
provisions differ in wording from the relevant provisions of the United Kingdom
Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 (10 &amp; 11 Geo. 6, c. 44). That Act provides in
section 17 (3) that:<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">“Civil
proceedings against the Crown shall be instituted against the appropriate
authorised Government department, or, if none of the authorised Government
departments is appropriate or the person instituting the proceedings has any
reasonable doubt whether any and if so which of those departments is
appropriate, against the Attorney-General.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Subsection
(1) of this same section of the Act imposes a duty on the treasury to publish a
list specifying the several government departments which are authorised
departments for the purpose of the Act.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
clear therefore that in the United Kingdom civil proceedings against the Crown
can only be brought either against an authorised government department </main>