KLAFA vs. COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE [1979]DLSC1078

Date	1979-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLSC1078

SARKODEE J.

BENTSI-ENCHILL FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AHLIJAH PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1979]DLSC1078
																																						<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" >KLAFA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 303<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:
17 MAY 1979<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">

BENTSI-ENCHILL FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

AHLIJAH, PRINCIPAL STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff
is a trader and normally resides in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. On 17 November 1976
she arrived at the Jewi Wharf, Half-Assini, from Abidjan. In her evidence she
said she was then travelling to Lome in the Republic of Togo to visit her
daughter who attends school there when at the wharf she was asked by the Border
Guards to declare any money she had on her. She said further that in the
process of declaring her goods the Border Guards sergeant took a tin of powder
from her travelling bag. When the tin was opened it was found to contain
635,000 C.F.A. francs and some cedis instead of talcum powder. The Border Guard
alleged that the plaintiff was concealing the money and so seized the 635,000
C.F.A. francs. Later the defendants issued a notice of seizure which reads:<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">“Take
notice that the following cash 635,000 C.F.A. francs have this day been seized
as forfeited to government on account of a contravention of the Customs
Ordinance, Cap 167 and section 23 (1) (a) (b) (c) and (2) of the Currency
(Amendment) Decree, 1974 (N.R.C.D. 295) and the Currency Regulations, 1974
(L.I. 984).”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
notice gave the plaintiff one calendar month within which she should give
notice in writing if she intended to claim that the goods were not liable to
forfeiture; in default the goods would be deemed to have been lawfully
confiscated and would be liable to be disposed of.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff did not give the notice as required; instead she asked for a return
of the money and after repeated demands sued the defendants claiming a declaration
that the forfeiture made under the notice of seizure No. 3/76 dated 17 November
1976 is in contravention of the Currency Act, 1964 (Act 242), and therefore
illegal, null and void. Also she asked for a return of the said amount to her.
Mr. Ahlijah, Principal State Attorney and counsel for the defendants, argued
that when the Border Guards found the C.F.A. francs they served notice of
seizure under section 84 of the Customs and Excise Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 114),
on the plaintiff; therefore if the plaintiff claimed that the notes were not
liable to forfeiture she should have given written notice of her claim to the
Comptroller of Customs and Excise within 30 days from the date of seizure.
Learned counsel concluded that since the plaintiff failed to give notice the
notes were deemed to have been forfeited to the Republic.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Forfeiture
of currency notes or coins must not be confused with seizure of goods under the
Customs and Excise Decree, 1972, which has replaced the Customs Ordinance, Cap.
167 (1951 Rev.). What the Border Guards purported to seize from the plaintiff
was foreign currency notes and not goods. The Decree itself by section 275
defines goods to include, “all kinds of articles, wares, merchandise and
livestock.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me therefore that section 84 of the Decree has a limited application and
does not give power to the Comptroller of Customs and Excise to seize currency
notes with the view of forfeiture. If the Border Guards seized the notes
relying on the Customs and Excise Decree then the seizure was wrongful. They
had no power to seize the C.F.A francs, the plaintiff was therefore not under
any obligation to give notice within one calendar month as contended.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
that is not the end of the matter. A closer look at the notice of seizure,
exhibit A, </main>