REPUBLIC vs. CONTROLLER AND ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL; EX PARTE DIZENGOFF (W.A.) LTD. [1974]DLHC2318

Date	1974-04-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2318

ABBAN J.

C. A. LOKKO FOR THE APPLICANT

C. K. A. ANSON SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLHC2318
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">CONTROLLER AND ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL; EX PARTE DIZENGOFF (W.A.)
LTD. <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1974] 1 GLR 337<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 4 APRIL 1974.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<a name="_gjdgxs"></a>C. A. LOKKO FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

C.
K. A. ANSON, SENIOR 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 black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>The
application is for an order of mandamus under Order 59, r. 2 of the Supreme
[High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), to compel the
Controller and Accountant-General, the respondent herein, to authorise payment
of certain sums of money due to the applicant. The applicant is a limited
liability company. It performed some services for the Eastern Regional
Administration and for those services the said Regional Administration became
indebted to the applicant in the sum of ¢91,845.00.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
November 1973, the Eastern Regional Administration sent a treasury draft of the
order of ¢91,845.00 to the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that
despite repeated requests, the respondent has refused to authorise payment of
the said amount of ¢91,845.00 or any part thereof.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
paragraph (5) of the affidavit sworn to by the general manager of the applicant
company, the reasons for the said refusal have been set out. The paragraph
reads as follows:<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">“(5) That
the Controller and Accountant-General’s refusal to authorise payment is based
on a claim of the sum of ¢100,000.00 from my company for which my company does
not admit liability and that the said claim is the subject of suit No. 162/1972
entitled The Attorney-General versus Dizengoff (West Africa) Limited awaiting a
hearing date before the High Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
general manager, on behalf of the applicant company, further stated that the
amount of ¢91,845.00 is “in respect of an entirely different transaction and
has no connection whatsoever with the said claim of ¢100,000.00” now the
subject-matter of suit No. 162/1972. The purpose of the present application, as
already stated, is therefore to compel the respondent to go ahead and give the
necessary authorisation for the payment of the ¢91,845.00, despite the pendency
of the said suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Learned
counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent has no right to refuse
payment. For, once the treasury draft has been issued, a statutory duty is cast
on the respondent to authorise payment. Counsel submitted that the refusal of
the respondent was also unlawful since the refusal was not based on any of the
circumstances listed in paragraph 19 (5) of the Financial Administration
Decree, 1967 (N.L.C,D. 165). Counsel again referred to paragraph 42 (1) of the
said Decree, and argued that even though the respondent, in his belated
supplemental affidavit, stated that the “Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, had recently given directives to suspend payment,” there is nothing to
show how recent the so-called directives are; and in all probability, no such
directives were ever given to the respondent. In any case, submitted counsel,
since it is established that the government, through the Eastern Regional
Administration, is indebted to the applicant, and the question whether or not
the applicant is also indebted to the government is a matter yet to be decided
by the High Court, the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance, did not
properly exercise his discretion in giving those directives to the respondent.
Consequently, the respondent cannot seek shelter under paragraph 42 (1) of the
said N. L.C. D. 165, and the order of a mandamus can issue.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application was </main>