JUDGMENT OF LASSEY J.
This appeal poses two important legal questions. The first point of law concerns the jurisdiction of the Asin Local Court before which the plaintiff's action was commenced and tried, and the second point concerns whether or not money paid under a mistake of law or of fact or of mixed fact and law is recoverable. I propose to deal first with the question regarding the jurisdiction of the local court.
The plaintiffs' claim before the Asin Local Court was for the recovery of the sum of £G28, being the difference in an overpayment in salary wrongly paid to the defendant. The defendant was at the material time when money was paid to him employed by the Apimanim Local Council. He was the council's nurse and was paid [p.20] his salaries from the council's votes. He was on an annual salary of £G301.
Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sackey, submitted that as the plaintiffs, namely, the Asin Apimanim Local Council, were at the material time of the trial before the local court a government department within the meaning of section 96 (2) of the Courts Act, 19601 the local court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs action. [His lordship here read the provisions of section 96 (2) of the Courts Act, 1960, as set out in the headnote and continued:]
It cannot be disputed that local councils which are created by statute are bodies through which the executive power of the State is exercised in the locality of the particular local council. Furthermore, the sum of £G28 which is being claimed in the present action, is part of the funds allocated to the Asin Apimanim Local Council by the Central Government to pay the salaries of its staff and for the general running of the council's affairs. As that fund as to be paid into the Consolidated Fund of the Government or State it is clear from the combined effect of articles 29 (2) and 51 (1) of the Constitution2 that the local court could not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute.
Learned state attorney for the appellants does not seem to seriously resist this argument that the local court had no jurisdiction to try the issues involved in this case.
In my opinion. by virtue of section 96 (2) of C.A. 9 the plaintiffs being a government department, and the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, the £G28 sought to be recovered, also being part of the Consolidated Fund, the jurisdiction of the local court is entirely ousted and the proceedings terminating in the
