REPUBLIC vs. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY, KUMASI; EX PARTE BADU [1971]DLHC2152

Date	1971-06-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2152

MENSA BOISON J.

BREMAH ANDOH FOR THE APPLICANT.

S. SAMPONG ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLHC2152
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY, KUMASI; EX PARTE BADU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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] 2 GLR 285<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:
15 JUNE 1971.<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">

BREMAH ANDOH FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

S. SAMPONG, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY, 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application for a rule absolute for an order of mandamus directing the chief
accountant of the Government Treasury Department to deliver a mortgage deed No.
2463/70 (hereafter to be referred to as the deed) executed on 13 July 1970 to
the applicant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent is charged with the collection of duties under the Stamp Act, 1965
(Act 311). By section 15 (1) and (2) it is provided 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">“(1)
Except where express provision is made to the contrary by this Act, any
unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument may be stamped with an impressed
stamp at any time within two months after its execution, on payment of the
unpaid duty. (2) No instrument shall be so stamped after the time limit
mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, except upon payment of the unpaid
duty in addition to a penalty of twelve cedis.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
common ground that on 22 July 1970 the applicant lodged with the District
Treasury, Kumasi, the deed executed on 13 July 1970, for an assessment and
payment of the necessary stamp duty. To escape payment of any penalty it meant
the deed must be stamped on or before 12 August 1970.<o:p></o:p>The case
for the respondent is that after lodgment of the deed on 22 July, neither the
applicant nor his solicitor called to pay the duty till September 1970. As
penalty was then due, the respondent refused to stamp the deed unless the
penalty was paid.<o:p></o:p>According
to the unopposed affidavit of the applicant the deed was accompanied by the
prescribed Form P. D. 1 completed as required under section 16 of Act 311.
Among the particulars was the name and address of the applicant. Again on the
unchallenged affidavit of the applicant when his solicitor lodged the deed with
the respondent, the respondent told the solicitor that he, the respondent, was
to send the deed to the Lands Department for assessment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question is how was the applicant or his solicitor to know that the deed has
been returned to the respondent from the Lands Department, unless the
respondent informed the applicant by the address given on the Form P.D. 1. It
is not disputed that the respondent did not inform the applicant. Was the
applicant expected to stop his business as a citizen and to keep running up and
down to the respondent to find out whether the deed had been assessed by the
Lands Department?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When an
enactment imposes a penalty upon a citizen, I think it is a fair interpretation
that the penalty should be exigible only as a result of default of the citizen.
In this case the chief accountant as a revenue collector sat idle upon his seat,
without communicating to the applicant. On the contrary his case is that the
applicant and other citizens like him should cease to perform all their daily
occupations and continually queue up at his door to find out when the pl</main>