JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A.
Azu Crabbe J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. When hearing of the appeal in this case was about to commence last Tuesday, 13 June 1967, counsel for the appellant asked leave of the court to make certain preliminary observations. He stated that the appeal in this case was fully argued in the High Court, Ho, before Kingsley Nyinah J., but before the learned judge could deliver his reserved judgment the case was transferred to this court on the directions of the Chief Justice. This transfer was no doubt made by virtue of paragraph 38 of the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), which vests the Chief Justice with power to transfer “any cause or matter from a judge of a Court . . . to any other Judge of such Court and from a Court . . . to any other competent Court . . .” Arguments before Kingsley-Nyinah J. took place after the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), had come into operation, and when decisions of the circuit court had become appealable to the Court of Appeal by virtue of paragraph 36 of the Decree. Paragraph 36 reads as follows:
"Without prejudice to any powers or rights otherwise expressly provided for in the provisions of this Decree or in any other enactment for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by a decision of a Circuit Court, other than a decision in a summary trial of a criminal case may, subject to and in accordance with those provisions, appeal to the Court of Appeal."
The proceedings in this case were brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), and by section 21 of that Act appeals from the decision of the circuit court lie to the High Court. The provisions of section 21 has not been repealed, and we think, therefore, that notwithstanding paragraph 36 of N.L.C.D. 84 any appeal from the decision of the circuit court in an action initiated under the provisions of section 21 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963, is still “subject to and in accordance with [the] provisions" of section 21 of that Act.
In our opinion the Chief Justice's directive that all appeals pending before the circuit court were to be transferred to the Court [p.435] of Appeal was not intended to apply to appeals form decisions of a circuit court judge in proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963. We hold therefore that we have no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in this matter, and we order that the case be remitted to the High Court, Ho, for Kingsley-Nyinah J. to give his reserved ju
