Samuel Balogun Palmer V. Sir George Beresford Stooke & Anor (1953)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Practice and Procedure—Inherent jurisdiction.
The Sierra Leone (Legislative Council) Order in Council, 1951—Validity in the Colony.
Facts
The above Order in Council, which has the heading “ Foreign Jurisdiction ”, was made by the Sovereign ” by virtue and in exercise of the powers vested in Him by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, and of all other powers enabling Him in that behalf ”. The Colony of Sierra Leone is a British Settlement; there is the Protectorate of Sierra Leone besides.
The appellant (plaintiff) sued for a declaration that the above Order was invalid and an injunction to restrain Sir. G. B. Stooke (the Governor) from giving effect to it; after pleadings the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious, and the Judge dismissed it summarily under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff argued that the above Order in Council had the heading ” Foreign Jurisdiction ” and that, as there was another Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1913, “all other powers” meant powers in respect of Foreign Jurisdiction; and that the Order was invalid so far as the Colony was concerned as not having been made under the British Settlements Act, 1887 (as amended in 1945) which authorises the King in Council to legislate for a Settled Colony.
The Order in Council gave the Protectorate more members in the Legislature than it gave the Colony—without authority, it was argued.
On procedure the appellant argued that on the motion filed the Court could not have dealt with questions of law.
Held
It was the plain intention of the Order in Council to legislate both for the Protectorate and the Colony, and there being power to legislate for the Colony under the British Settlements Act, this Act was contemplated by the words “and of all other powers enabling Him (viz. the King) in that behalf”.
Held also: The Court has, apart from rules, inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of its process, and rightly stopped this action relating to an Act of State which could not be questioned in Court.
(Note.—The judgment was read by one of the Judges on 26th August, 1955.)
Appeal dismissed.
