BENNEH vs. THE REPUBLIC AND ANOTHER [1971]DLSC2094

Date	1971-07-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLSC2094

KOI LARBI JSC

ANIN J.S.C.

LASSEY J.A.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE APPELLANT.

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

[1971]DLSC2094
																																						<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" >BENNEH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>THE REPUBLIC AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<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 354<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:
7 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">

JOE
REINDORF FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

KOI LARBI, ANIN JJ.S.C. AND LASSEY J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KOI LARBI J.S.C<o:p></o:p>He read
the judgment of himself and Anin J.S.C. On 26 April 1971 we unanimously
dismissed this appeal from the ruling of Aboagye J. reported in [1971] 1 G.L.R.
78, and the court intimated that it would later give its reasons for its
decision. This we now proceed to do so.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By his
writ of summons, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to simply as
“the plaintiff”) claimed against the defendants-respondents hereafter referred
to as “the defendants” for short) the following relief: “Injunction to restrain
the defendants by themselves, servants, or agents or otherwise from going into
execution in the suit entitled `In the matter of Investigation and Forfeiture
of Assets (Further Investigation of Commissions Findings) (No. 3) Decree 1969,
N.L.C.D. 400. Between: The State, judgment/creditor And Isaac William Benneh,
judgment/debtor’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
statement of claim, the plaintiff set out as indicated in (1971] G.L.R. 78 at
p. 79, the material facts upon which he relied in support of the relief claimed
thus:<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.
Plaintiff has been served, at the instance of the first defendant, with a
document dated 20 November 1969, entitled `Entry of Judgment-under Order 41 R.S.C.,’
purporting to be an entry of judgment in this court against plaintiff for the
sum of N¢15,302.46 in an alleged suit entitled Republic v. Benneh. <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">2. In
pursuance of the said entry of judgment the sheriff has caused to issue a writ
of fi. fa. for the purpose of attaching and selling compulsorily certain
properties of plaintiff. <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">3. No
unsatisfied judgment has been pronounced against plaintiff herein in favour of
the State or of any other person in the sum of N¢15,302.46 or in any other sum,
and there has been no suit or matter before this court with the title in
paragraph 1 above referred to in which the said sum or any other sum has been
claimed against plaintiff herein. 4. The said entry of judgment purports to be
`pursuant to the provisions of N.L.C.D. 400.’ 5. The said N.L.C.D. 400, which
was made on 30 September 1969, is repugnant to the Constitution, 1969, and in
particular to articles 12 and 18 thereof, wherefore the said N.L.C.D. 400 is
under article 1 (2) of the Constitution, void and of no effect. 6. Plaintiff’s
claim therefore is under article 28 of the Constitution for an order of
injunction to restrain defendants, their agents, servants and assigns from
carrying out any or all of the provisions of the said N.L.C.D. 400.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants admitted paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the statement of claim, and relied
squarely on N.L.C.D. 400. They contended that “Decree 400 does not contravene
any provision of the Constitution as alleged or at all.” They denied paragraphs
3, 5 and 6 of the statement of claim and pleaded that the plaintiff is not
entitled to the relief sought or to any other relief.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>