CHIEF KWAMINA SAKYIAMA
1932
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
1932
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a motion for reviewing a court's previous order that dismissed the appellant's appeal in a slander case adjudicated by the Native Tribunal of Cape Coast. The appeal was initially denied due to non-fulfillment of cost payments required by the Native Administration Ordinance. The court upheld the dismissal and further denied the review motion, citing the non-retrospective nature of the amended ordinance. The ruling included references to several precedents and statutory provisions. Concurring opinions were provided by KINGDON, c.J. NIGERIA and MACQUARRIE, J.
The following judgments were delivered :-
DEANE, C.J. THE GOLD COAST COLONY.
This is a motion that the Court should review its order made on 5th May, 1932, dismissing an appeal by the appellant from an order of Bannerman Acting Judge.
It appears that a suit having been instituted in the Native Tribunal of Cape Coast whereby the plaintiff claimed £100 damages for slander against the defendant. that Tribunal gave a decision awarding to the plaintiff the sum of £4 Is. damages and costs which were subsequently assessed at £74 18s. The appellant thereupon got conditional leave to appeal from the judgment of the Tribunal, but for some reason best known to himself-probably because he had not fulfilled the condition precedent imposed by section 77 (2) of the Native Administration Ordinance requiring the payment of costs as a preliminary to appeal, he later applied to the District Commissioner to grant him conditional leave to appeal.
This the Commissioner refused to do on the ground that section 74 (1) of the Native Administration Ordinance Cap. III specifically limited appeals in civil cases other than land cases from a Paramount Chief's Tribunal (as this was) to a District Commissioner to cases in which the subject matter of the appeal was of the value of £5 or upwards exclusive of costs. This decision of the District Commissioner was upheld by the learned Judge in the lower Court, and on 5th May this Court, as above stated, made an order dismissing the defendant's appeal from the latter's decision. Now this Court is asked to review its decision on the ground that after the Divisional Court Judge delivered his judgment on 2nd October, 1931--to wit on 12th October, 1931, an Ordinance No. 23 of 1931 was passed amending section 74 (1) of the Native Administration Ordinance so as to give to any person dissatisfied with the decision of a Paramount Chief's Tribunal a right to appeal to a District Commissioner's Court in any civil cause or matter (save those otherwise provided for) in which the subject matter in dispute is of the value of £5 or upwards, and also as to costs when the amount of such costs ordered to be paid exceeds £5.
Now it must be obvious that inasmuch as the learned Judge in the Divisional Court delivered his judgment on the 2nd October, 1931, that is to say ten days before the now Ordinance came into force, his judgment was in view of the law then existing correct, and an appeal from it on the ground that it was wrong when delivered was bound t