Amoah Ababio & Ors V. John Edmund Turkson (1954)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Gold Coast—Jurisdiction—Claims in respect of debt or liability against
specified Stools—Certificate of Governor-in-Council—” The amount which ought to be paid “—Reference re whole question of liability and not merely quantum–Asamangkese Division Regulation Ordinance, 1935 (Laws of Gold Coast), 1936 (Rev., c. 78) (as amended by Asamangkese Division Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, No. 5 of 1945 (Gold Coast), section 2 (b)), section 6 (2). Statute—Construction—Ambiguity—Relevance of inconvenient results of one construction.

Facts

The Asamangkese Division Regulation Ordinance, 1935, of the Gold Coast, the effect of which was to withdraw entirely from the jurisdiction of the Courts any claim against the Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools for a debt or liability incurred before the date of the Ordinance, provided by section 6 (2), as amended by the Asamangkese Division Regulation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1945, that inter alia, the Governor-in-Council ” if he thinks fit, may refer the matter to the Executive Council for consideration as to whether or not it is desirable, in the interests of justice, that the claim or any part thereof, or the amount which ought to be paid, should be adjudicated upon in an action against the Stool “, and may, upon such reference, if he considers it desirable, in his absolute discretion certify that the circumstances in respect of any such claim were such that the matter might properly be the subject of legal proceedings. Pursuant to those provisions, a certificate was issued by the Governor-in-Council to the respondent which, after reciting that a claim by the respondent against the Asitmangkese and Akwatia Stools for moneys Alleged to be due to him under an agreement made in 1921, whereby the Stools agreed to pay him 5 per cent of all moneys received by them in respect of certain mineral concessions granted to companies introduced by the respondent, had been referred to the Executive Council, stated that the Governor-in-Council ” hereby certifies that in his opinion the circumstances are such that . . . the amount which ought to be paid in respect of the said claim, may properly be the subject of legal proceedings ” by the respondent against the Stools.

Held

That the words ” the amount which ought to be paid ” in the Ordinance and certificate covered the question of liability on the claim as a whole, and were not referring to a mere question of quantum.

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the West African Court of Appeal.