FRED EDUKUMA ELLIS AND ALBERT ERNEST ERCHIA (JNR.) vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1998]DLSC6405

Date	1998-07-22
Suit No.	WRIT NO. 16/94
Citation No.	[1998]DLSC6405

MRS. J BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.

MR. PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR PLAINTIFF.

MR. AVAH CHIEF ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1998]DLSC6405
																																						<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" >FRED EDUKUMA ELLIS AND ALBERT
ERNEST ERCHIA (JNR.) <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. PETER ALA ADJETEY FOR PLAINTIFF.
<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">

MR. AVAH, CHIEF ATTORNEY FOR THE
DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

MRS. J BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C., HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
J.S.C., ADJABENG J.S.C., ATUGUBA J.S.C., MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>MRS.
JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>I
have been privileged to read in advance the ruling of my Brother Adjabeng,
J.S.C. and I agree with him. In this case the Plaintiffs invoked the Original
Jurisdiction of this court under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution, for a
declaration: <o:p></o:p>1.
That the Hemang Lands (Acquisition and Compensation) Law 1992 (PNDCL 294) is
inconsistent with and in contravention of the Constitution of the Republic of
Ghana 1992 especially, Articles 20 and 170 thereof and is consequently null and
void. <o:p></o:p>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>a)
That the PNDCL 294 is not inconsistent with Articles 20 and 107 of the
Constitution 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. <o:p></o:p>b)
That PNDCL 294 being a legislative act of the PNDCL done before the coming into
force of the Constitution for the purpose of vesting the Hemang Land in the
Republic, the Courts cannot by virtue of S.34 of the Transitional Provisions of
the Constitution 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>The
PNDCL 294 came into force on the 20th November 1992 before the coming into
force of the Constitution on the 7th January 1993, so that the Hemang lands was
vested in the Republic, see S.1 of PNDCL 294, a few weeks before the effective
date of the Constitution. By virtue of Article 11(2) of the Constitution PNDCL
294 formed part of the existing laws of Ghana. That Article says: <o:p></o:p>"Article
11 (2) The existing law shall except as otherwise provided in clause (1) of
this Article, comprises 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 provides that <o:p></o:p>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, issued or
made under the authority of this Constitution". <o:p></o:p>This
would mean that existing Law passed by any Government except the PNDC or Armed
Forces Revolutionary Council Government could be challenged under S.36(2) of
the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution if it is found to be
inconsistent with a provision of the 1992 Constitution. However, the exception
to this is clearly stated in the provisions of Section 34(3) of the
Transitional Provisions and affects PNDCL 294 which is a legislative act of the
PNDC Government. Section 34(3) provides: <o:p></o:p>"For
the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that no executive, legislative or
judicial action taken or purported to have been taken by the Provisional
National Defence Council or the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council or a member
of the Provisional National Defence Council or the Armed Forces Revolutionary
Council or any person appointed by the Provisional National Defence Council or
the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council in the name of either the Provisional
National Defence Council or the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council shall be
questioned in any proceedings whatsoever and accordingly, it shall not be
lawful for any court or other tribunal to make any order or grant any remedy or
relief in respect of any such act." <o:p></o:p>By
virtue of S.34(3) supra PNDCL 294 cannot be que</main>