ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT v. SWEATER AND SOCKS FACTORY LIMITED
January 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- WOOD (MRS.) C.J. PRESIDING
- ANSAH, J.S.C
- DOTSE, J.S.C
- ANIN YEBOAH, J.S.C
- GBADEGBE, J.S.C
- AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS.), J.S.C
January 29, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
WOOD (MRS), C.J,
The articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution provide that:
2 (1) “A person who alleges that-
an enactment or anything contained in or done, under the authority of that or any other enactment;
or
any act or omission of any person;
is inconsistent with, or is in contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration to that effect.
130 (1) Subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms as provided in article 33 of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in-
all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of this
Constitution;”
This action, which is brought under the above constitutional provisions, has its genesis in the confiscation of the assets of the Defendant, Sweater and Socks Factory Limited (Sweater and Socks), to the State in 1979. The order of confiscation was exacted by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) under s. 1 and the Schedule thereof of the Transfer of Shares and Other Proprietary Interests (Babylos Co. Ltd. and Others Decree, 1979, (AFRCD 38). The Plaintiff alleges that this confiscation was never thereafter, at any point in time, reversed, either by virtue of the Confiscated Assets (Removal of Doubt) Law, 1993, (PNDCL 325) or by the President acting under the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution. It was further alleged that this notwithstanding, the Plaintiff had successfully sued to recover possession of the assets. The Sovereign Republic of Ghana describing the court’s orders in this regard as manifestly unconstitutional and a complete nullity has, through the Attorney –General, approached this court, under Articles 2(1) and 130 of the 1992 Constitution, per an amended writ for two main reliefs, namely,
“A declaration that by virtue of section 35 (1) of the Transitional Provisions of 1992 Constitution of Ghana, no court in Ghana has jurisdiction or competence to issue any order de-confiscating any property confiscated by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and /or to award any monetary reliefs against the Republic of Ghana for the possession and /or use of any such confiscated property;
A declaration that the judgment of the High Court , Accra dated 8th April 2003 in Sweater and Socks Factory Limited V Attorney-General and Ors (Suit No C.681/94) wherein the High Court made an order de-confiscating the assets of t
AI Generated Summary
The Sovereign Republic of Ghana, acting through the Attorney-General, invoked the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction under articles 2(1) and 130(1) to challenge High Court orders concerning Sweater and Socks Factory Limited. The Republic sought declarations that no court could de-confiscate property seized by the AFRC and that the High Courts April 2003 judgment in Sweater and Socks Factory Ltd v Attorney-General was void under section 35(1) of the Transitional Provisions. Sweater and Socks acknowledged the 1979 confiscation under AFRCD 38 but maintained that its assets had been lawfully de-confiscated by petitions to the AFRC and the Special Tribunal under AFRCD 23 and that this status was judicially affirmed. Chief Justice Wood held that PNDCL 352s schedule did not list any Sweater and Socks assets, indicating de-confiscation; res judicata barred re-litigation of the de-confiscation issue; section 35(1) applies only to confiscated property and did not oust the High Courts jurisdiction; and the High Courts judgment was declaratory. Justices Dotse and Gbadegbe concurred, with Dotse emphasizing jurisdictional constraints and Gbadegbe explaining the declaratory nature. The action was dismissed.