Decision (1st September 1952): After the court had delivered judgment in this matter, Mr. Abbensetts for the executors of the estate of G. J. Christian, deceased, asked for costs. To this Mr. Webster objected, and the question was deferred for decision later.
At common law, the King neither pays nor receives costs, for "as it is his prerogative not to pay them to a subject, so it is beneath his dignity to receive them."
This principle is one of long recognition-namely that costs are not given against or demanded by the Crown. If, as I am informed, they have on occasion been given in acquisition cases in this country, then with respect, I think they were given in error.
The principle applies also to Government Departments.
It is true that this is not an action in the ordinary sense; but there is a dispute tetween the parties for determination by the court, and this being so, I cannot see any reason why the principle should not apply. The Crown, if the amount awarded had been that which it offered or less, would not have received costs. The other party cannot therefore reasonably expect them. The right to costs must be mutual.
No costs are allowed.
Review of Decision (27th September 1952): On the 9th day of July, 1952 the court awarded compensation amounting to £68710 s. in this matter. The executors of the estate of G. J. Christian, deceased, whose land had been acquired, asked for £3,000. The Crown offered £300.
Costs having been asked for by counsel for the executors, and having been opposed by the Commissioner of Lands, the court deferred the question of costs for later consideration.
In a short decision given on 1st September, 1952, the court intimated that, as the Crown was a party, no costs would be allowed, since if the amount awarded had been that which the Crown offered or less, no costs would have been given to the Crown, and that the right to costs was mutual.
Immediately after this decision had been delivered, Mr. Abbensetts, counsel for the executors, invited the court's attention, with permission, to the case of the Commissioner of Lands v. Daniel 2 and the case of The Honourable the Chief Secretary v. William Richardson. 3
The former case was decided in accordance with specific legislation of Nigeria-Section 19 of the Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance. There is no corresponding provision in Gold Coast legislation. The Commissioner of Lands v. Daniel, 4 is therefore not applicable.
The Colonial Secretary v. Richardson 5 is a Gold C