IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; ANDANI vs. ABUDULAI [1980]DLCA1589

Date	1980-04-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1589

FRANCOIS JA

EDUSEI JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

MISS AKUA ASABEA AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.

APPIAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLCA1589
																																						<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" >IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; ANDANI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABUDULAI<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 283<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:
16
APRIL 1981<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">

MISS AKUA ASABEA AYISI FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

FRANCOIS, EDUSEI AND EDWARD WIREDU
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>In order
to appreciate the reasons for the ruling about to be given, I consider it
necessary to set out very briefly the history of this case which has come to be
known as the “Yendi Skin Affairs.” A sole committee of inquiry was appointed to
probe the Yendi Skin Affairs. The government accepted the findings of the
committee and enacted legislation to enforce them. This legislation is the
Yendi Skin Affairs Decree, 1974 (N.R.C.D. 299), and it denied the aggrieved
person, Mahamadu Abudulai, a right to challenge those findings on appeal. Be
that as it may, the Yendi Skin Affairs (Appeal) Decree, 1979 (S.M.C.D. 238),
which came into force on 25 May 1979 conferred that right. Accordingly,
Mahamadu Abudulai on 9 August 1979 filed an appeal in the registry of the Court
of Appeal in the usual and conventional form. Since there were no rules
governing such an appeal, Mahamadu Abudulai applied to the court for
directions. Both the notice of appeal and the application for directions were
served on Yakubu Andani, the Ya-Na of Yendi. The court accordingly gave
directions but it does seem that neither Yakubu Andani nor his counsel was
present at the hearing of the application and the court graciously granted
liberty to the said Yakubu Andani, for good reason, to have those directions
varied, rescinded or otherwise set aside or to obtain additional directions as
it may seem fit to the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As would
be expected, Yakubu Andani took advantage of this reserved right, and his
solicitor filed an application on 14 January 1981 seeking to set aside the
order of the court which is contained in the ruling of 8 December 1980. This
application by Yakubu Andani, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, has
provoked the instant controversy between him and Mahamadu Abudulai, hereinafter
referred to simply as the respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
contention of the applicant as set out in his supporting affidavit is that in
view of the Yendi Skin Affairs (Appeal) (Repeal) Decree, 1979 (A.F.R.C.D. 32),
the respondent’s appeal and subsequent summons for directions resulting in the
ruling of 8 December 1980, have been rendered nugatory. A.F.R.C.D. 32 sought to
repeal S.M.C.D. 238 which had given the right of appeal to the respondent. The
respondent also in his opposing affidavit maintains that the A.F.R.C.D. 32
never had any force in law and therefore S.M.C.D. 238 is still in full force
and the respondent’s appeal to the Court of Appeal stands valid. It is
abundantly clear that the bone of contention between the parties revolves
around the legal validity or otherwise of A.F.R.C.D. 32.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent in his opposing affidavit deposed as follows:<o:p></o:p>“3. That
at the hearing of the motion brought by Yakubu Andani,, counsel will on my
behalf contend that A.F.R.C.D. 32 does not in any way affect the appeal filed
herein on my behalf and consequently that the Decree does not affect the
directions given by the honourable Court of Appeal on 8 December 1980. 4. That
I am advised by counsel and verily believe that the contentions which will be
urged upon the honourable Court of Appeal by my counsel are: (a) that
A.F.R.C.D. 32 never had any force in law, and (b) that even if A.F.R.C.D. 32
had any existence in law, which is denied, at the time of its printing and
publication in the gazette its operation had been so much affected by the
Constitution, 1979, of the Republic of Ghana as not to have any possible effect
on my appeal herein. I am further advised by counsel and verily believe that to
raise these contentions it is first requisite to have established a question of
fact, namely, the dates for the printing of A.F.R.C.D. 32 and its publication
in the gazette. 5. That the publication of A.F.R.C.D. 32 was made in the Ghana
Gazette bearing particulars No. 44 of Friday, 21 September 1979. 6. That I have
good grounds to believe that each of them both the A.F.R.C.D. 32 and the said
Gazette No. 44 was printed and published after 24 September 1979 and that both
of them were in fact printed in October 1979”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent went on to state the grounds for his </main>