AKRASHI II v. OFORI ATTA

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.

The first plaintiff Nii Kofi Aktashi II was until the 12th February, 1957, the Mantse of James Town, Accra, and occupied the James Town Mantse We. On the said 12th February, he was declared destooled. He disputed his destoolment and took steps to contest its constitutionality. Meanwhile he continued to occupy the Mantse We.

On the 31st May, he was ejected from the Mantse We in execution of an order, the James Town Stool Property (No. 2) Order 19581 made under the Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 19572 The other plaintiffs who were living with him in the Mantse We were also ejected from the Mantse We. In connection with that process he, the first plaintiff was arrested and charged before the district magistrate's court with a criminal offence. The case was subsequently transferred to the High Court.

At the date of the ejectment of the plaintiffs, there was pending in the then Supreme Court, a suit instituted by one Nii Kojo Ashamanfro II Dsasetse of James Town stool and Acting Mantse of James Town for a declaration that the Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1957, and the orders made thereunder are invalid. The said suit was determined on the 31st May, 1958 in favour of the plaintiff therein, and the said Act and the consequential orders were declared null and void. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the criminal prosecution which was then pending in the High Court was discontinued.

As a sequel to the judgment declaring the Statute Law (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1957, invalid, Parliament passed the Stool Property (Recovery and Validation) Act, 19593 which among other things validated all acts purported to have been done under the said Act, or under any order made thereunder and empowered the Minister to entertain claims and offer compensation for any acts purported to have been done under the Act or in the attempted enforcement of any order thereunder.

The first plaintiff availing himself of the provisions of section 8, subsection (2) of the Act of 1959 petitioned the Minister on behalf of himself and the other plaintiffs for compensation for injuries occasioned to them by the enforcement of the said order, that is their ejectment, and his arrest and arraignment before the court on a criminal charge. In reply to his said petition the first plaintiff received a letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to say that "the Minister was unable to accept the claim." In consequence of that reply the plaintif