1936
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Yates, J. decided a motion by defendants to dismiss a suit brought by the Chiefs of Asamangkese and Akwatia challenging Ordinance No. 3 of 1935 (The Asamangkese Divisional Regulation Ordinance, 1935). The ordinance empowered the Prescribed Officer, William Hugh Beeton, to collect stool land rents and revenues, sue on behalf of the stools, and to prohibit disposals of stool property without his consent. Plaintiffs argued that the Legislative Council lacked authority to enact such provisions, that native custom and Royal Instructions reserved destooling and stool revenue control to the people, and that the ordinance was repugnant to English law. Rejecting a preliminary demurrer objection, the Court applied the Letters Patent’s “peace, order and good government” grant, the Native Jurisdiction Ordinance’s conferral of power on the Governor, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act to conclude that the ordinance was lawfully passed and not repugnant. The motion succeeded and the claim was dismissed with costs.
The following ruling was given: YATES, J. RULING.
This is a Motion on notice brought by virtue of Order 19, rule 1, of Schedule 3 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1935* praying this Court to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim in the above action with costs without any answer upon questions of fact being required from the defendants upon the ground that, even if the allegations of fact made by the plaintiffs were admitted or established, this action is not maintainable in law and the plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief as prayed or at all. Order 19, rule 1, Schedule 3 of Ordinance No. 7 of 1935 is as follows:- "Where a defendant conceives that he has a good legal or equitable " defence to the suit, so that even if the allegations of the plaintiff were admitted " or established, yet the plaintiff would not be entitled to any decree against "the defendant, he may raise this defence by a motion that the suit be dis- " missed without any answer upon questions of fact being required from him." The plaintiffs' claim is as follows:- "The plaintiffs as Chiefs of Asamangkese and Akwatia seek for a declara" tion that the Ordinance No. 3/35 of 30th March, 1935, purported to be passed " by the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast Colony and giving or purporting " to give power to William Hugh Beeton the Prescribed Officer to- "(a) collect all rents, dues, royalties and revenues from lands the property " of the Stools of the plaintiffs; "(b) to collect all levies, dues, fees and rates payable to the Stools of the plaintiffs by virtue of or in accordance with the provisions of any Ordinance or bye-law, regulation or rule made thereunder or by virtue of or in accordance with native customary law. "(c) And on behalf and in the name of the Stools of the plaintiffs sue and exercise all legal remedies for the recovery of the revenue of the Stools of the plaintiffs or any part of such revenue. "(d) And that no person shall without the consent of the Prescribed Officer dispose on behalf of the Stools of the Plaintiffs of any interest or right in or over their Stool property and any such disposal made without the consent of the Prescribed Officer shall be null and void and unenforceable in a Court of law, " is an Ordinance passed ultra vires of the powers of the said Legislative Council " and repugnant to the Law of England and therefore of no effect. "The plaintiffs ask that the said Ordinance be declared to be an Ordinance " which the Legislative Council could not lawfully pass and