IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; ANDANI v. ABUDULAI

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.A.

In order to appreciate the reasons for the ruling about to be given, I consider it necessary to set out very briefly the history of this case which has come to be known as the "Yendi Skin Affairs." A sole committee of inquiry was appointed to probe the Yendi Skin Affairs. The government accepted the findings of the committee and enacted legislation to enforce them. This legislation is the Yendi Skin Affairs Decree, 1974 (N.R.C.D. 299), and it denied the aggrieved person, Mahamadu Abudulai, a right to challenge those findings on appeal. Be that as it may, the Yendi Skin Affairs (Appeal) Decree, 1979 (S.M.C.D. 238), which came into force on 25 May 1979 conferred that right. Accordingly, Mahamadu Abudulai on 9 August 1979 filed an appeal in the registry of the Court of Appeal in the usual and conventional form. Since there were no rules governing such an appeal, Mahamadu Abudulai applied to the court for directions. Both the notice of appeal and the application for directions were served on Yakubu Andani, the Ya-Na of [p.286] Yendi. The court accordingly gave directions but it does seem that neither Yakubu Andani nor his counsel was present at the hearing of the application and the court graciously granted liberty to the said Yakubu Andani, for good reason, to have those directions varied, rescinded or otherwise set aside or to obtain additional directions as it may seem fit to the court.

As would be expected, Yakubu Andani took advantage of this reserved right, and his solicitor filed an application on 14 January 1981 seeking to set aside the order of the court which is contained in the ruling of 8 December 1980. This application by Yakubu Andani, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, has provoked the instant controversy between him and Mahamadu Abudulai, hereinafter referred to simply as the respondent.

The contention of the applicant as set out in his supporting affidavit is that in view of the Yendi Skin Affairs (Appeal) (Repeal) Decree, 1979 (A.F.R.C.D. 32), the respondent's appeal and subsequent summons for directions resulting in the ruling of 8 December 1980, have been rendered nugatory. A.F.R.C.D. 32 sought to repeal S.M.C.D. 238 which had given the right of appeal to the respondent. The respondent also in his opposing affidavit maintains that the A.F.R.C.D. 32 never had any force in law and therefore S.M.C.D. 238 is still in full force and the respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeal stands valid. It is abundantly