ELLIS AND ANOTHER vs ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1998]DLSC127

Date	1998-07-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1998]DLSC127

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

ADJABEN JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

AVAH

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY

FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1998]DLSC127
																																						<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:#00B0F0">ELLIS AND ANOTHER<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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 377<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:PETER ALA
ADJETEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.AVAH, CHIEF
STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE DEFENDANT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:BAMFORD-ADDO,
CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Bamford-Addo
JSC. <o:p></o:p>I have been privileged to read in advance the ruling of my brother
Adjabeng JSC and I agree with him. In this case the plaintiffs invoked the
original jurisdiction of this court under article 2 of the Constitution, 1992
for a declaration 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) the Hemang Lands (Acquisition and Compensation) Law, 1992
(PNDCL 294) is inconsistent with and in contravention of the. Constitution,
1992 of the Republic of Ghana, specifically articles 20 and 107 thereof and is
consequently null and void. <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) An order setting aside or striking down as null and void the
said PNDCL 294.”<o:p></o:p>The defendant raised certain preliminary objections to the claim
of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds; important amongst them are the
following:<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">“(a) That the PNDCL 294 is not inconsistent with articles 20 and
107 of the Constitution, 1992 because the Constitution acts prospectively and
not retrospectively to affect the acquisition which had taken place months
before the coming into force of the Constitution; and <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">(b) that PNDCL 294 being a legislative act of the PNDC, 1992 done
before the coming into force of the Constitution, 1992 for the purpose of
vesting the Hemang Land in the Republic, the courts cannot, by virtue of
section 34 of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 go behind
the law and question its rationale or wisdom, as the jurisdiction of the court
is ousted in respect of the said legislative act of the PNDC.”<o:p></o:p>PNDCL 294 came into force on 20 November 1992, before the coming
into force of the Constitution, 1992 on 7 January 1993; so that the Hemang
lands were vested in the Republic a few weeks before the effective date of the
Constitution, 1992: see section 1 of PNDCL 294. By virtue of article 11(4) of
the Constitution, 1992, PNDCL 294 formed part of the existing laws of Ghana.
That article says:<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">“(4) The existing law shall, except as otherwise provided in
clause (1) of this article, comprise the written and unwritten laws of Ghana as
they existed immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution, and
any Act, Decree, Law or statutory instrument issued or made before that date,
which is to come into force on or after that date.”<o:p></o:p>However, section 36(2) of the transitional provisions of the
Constitution, 1992 provides 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">“(2) Notwithstanding the abrogation of the Proclamation referred
to in subsection (1) of this section, any enactment or rule of law in force
immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution shall, in so far
as it is not inconsistent with a provision of this Constitution, continue in
force as if enacted, is sued or made under the authority of this Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>On account of section 36(2) of the transitional provisions of the
Constitution, </main>