DONKOR vs. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA (CONSOLIDATED) [1970]DLSC2108

DONKOR vs. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA (CONSOLID... [1970]DLSC2108

Date	1970-07-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLSC2108

APALOO JA

SIRIBOE JA

SOWAH JA

ANIN JA

ARCHER J.A.

KWAKU BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

C. H. TETTEY PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1970]DLSC2108
																																						<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" >DONKOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND DONKOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA (CONSOLIDATED) <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<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 30<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:
31 JULY 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">

KWAKU
BONSU FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

C. H.
TETTEY, 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">

APALOO, SIRIBOE, SOWAH, ANIN AND ARCHER
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. This matter comes before this court
sitting as the Supreme Court on a reference by the High Court (Coussey J.),
under the provisions of article 106 of the Constitution, 1969. The actions were
commenced by two different plaintiffs against certain named individuals and in
both suits, damages were sought for wrongful seizure of two cars. The first
writ was issued on 26 September 1968 and the second on 9 October 1968. On 29
October 1968, the Republic of Ghana was ordered to be substituted for the
defendants by order of the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This was
at the request of the plaintiffs. The result was that when the Constitution
came into force on 22 August 1969, these actions for damages were pending in
the court against the Government of Ghana. As the facts grounding the relief
sought were the same and the identical defence is relied on in both suits, the
court, on the application of the parties, consolidated both suits for hearing
and determination. It is in this manner that they were referred to us.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In so far
as the case stated relates the facts, they are as follows: The first suit
relates to car No. GF 5079. It is a Skoda car which originally belonged to the
Convention People’s Party. The party apparently sold it to the plaintiff at
some unspecified date before the change of government. The car was seized on
the instructions of the National Liberation Council-the then Government-on 20
March 1966 at Kumasi. It was then sold at a price of N¢400.00. The plaintiff’s
complaint was that the car was her property and ought not to have been sold.
That is why she sought damages against the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The car
in the second suit is a Mercedes Benz No. VR 242. It was purchased by the
plaintiff who was a member of Parliament. It was seized at Wenchi on 28
February 1966, on the instructions of the National Liberation Council. At the
date of seizure, nothing was owed to the government from the plaintiff. The car
was sold but as a result of representations made to the government, it was
retrieved from the purchaser and returned to the plaintiff. The damages which
the plaintiff sought were for the seizure.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
facts were not disputed by the defendant. The latter, however, relied on
section 13 (3) of the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution and claimed
that the suits were not maintainable by reason of the provisions of that
subsection. The plaintiffs dispute this and the true interpretation of this
section thus became an issue before the High Court. The latter, in obedience to
article 106 (2) of the Constitution, referred the question of interpretation to
this court and formulated two questions for our decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
first suit, the learned judge asked us to determine:<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">