JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.
The plaintiff's claim in this suit is for an injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves, servants, or agents or otherwise from going into execution in the suit entitled, Republic v. Benneh, High Court, 9 December 1969, unreported.
The State had, pursuant to the provisions of the National Liberation Council (Investigation and Forfeiture of Assets) (Further Implementation of Commissions' Findings) (No. 3) Decree, 1969 (N.L.C.D. 400), entered judgment in this court on 9 December 1969, against the plaintiff herein, for the sum of N¢15,302.46.
The statement of claim is brief and concise and for the purpose of this ruling it is relevant to quote it in extenso. It is as follows:
[p.79]
"1. Plaintiff has been served, at the instance of the first defendant, with a document dated 20 November 1969 entitled “entry of Judgment—under Order 41 R.S.C.,' purporting to be an entry of judgment in this court against plaintiff for the sum of N¢15,302.46 in an alleged suit entitled Republic. v. Benneh.
2. In pursuance of the said entry of judgment the sheriff has caused to issue a writ of fi.fa. for the purpose of attaching and selling compulsorily certain properties of plaintiff.
3. No unsatisfied judgment has been pronounced against plaintiff herein in favour of the State or of any other person in the sum of N¢5,302.46 or in any other sum, and there has been no suit or matter before this court with the title in paragraph 1 above referred to in which the said sum or any other sum has been claimed against plaintiff herein.
4. The said entry of judgment purports to be pursuant to the provisions of N.L.C.D. 400.'
5. The said N.L.C.D. 400, which was made on 30 September 1969, is repugnant to the Constitution, 1969, and in particular to articles 12 and 18 thereof, wherefore the said N.L.C.D. 400 is under article 1 (2) of the Constitution, void and of no effect.
6. Plaintiff's claim therefore is under article 28 of the Constitution for an order of injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants and assigns from carrying out any or all of the provisions of the said N.L.C.D. 400."
In their statement of defence the defendants averred, inter alia, that their entry of judgment referred to by the plaintiff was legal and proper and that N.L.C.D. 400 does not contravene any provision of the Constitution as alleged by the plaintiff.
From the pleadings it is quite obvious that the only material issue to be tried is whether or no