Order
of Provincial Commissioner under
section
71 (1)
of Native Administration
Ordinance-Must provide fur
hearing of case by some
tribunal-Otherwise it is of no
effect a. stay or
otherwise-Order of Review under
section
84 (1)
of Ordinance remains in force
where Commissioner's order void.
The facts are set out in the
judgment.
Held: Execution of original
judgment stayed pending review.
A ,'Sawyer
(with him
Ofei Awere)
for Appellant.
E. C.
Quist
for Respondents.
The following judgment was
delivered: DEANE, C.J., GOLD
COAST.
This is an appeal from a
decision of the Provincial
Commissioner of the Eastern
Province, dated 23rd December,
1933, in which he refused to
stay the issue of execution
under a judgment of a Tribunal.
The facts so far as they are
relevant may be shortly stated.
In April, 1928, the plaintiffs
brought an action against
defendant in the Tribunal of the
Ga Manche in which they alleged
that as children of Abraham
Augustus Lutterodt deceased they
had an interest in his estate,
and claimed (1) a declaration
that they were members of the
family of the said Abraham
Augustus Lutterodt and as such
entitled in distribution of his
estate (2) to have the estate
wound up and the portion due to
them severally paid to them. On
30th December, 1930, the
Tribunal delivered judgment
declaring that as lawful issue
of a lawful marriage according
to native customary law
plaintiffs were members of the
family of deceased and were
entitled to one-third in the
distribution of the estate of
deceased. They also granted
plaintiffs costs.
Defendant did not appeal from
this judgment but applied to the
Tribunal and obtained from it an
order of review under section 84
(1) of the Native Administration
Ordinance, and from a letter
written by plaintiffs and
exhibited on page 10 of the
record it seems that a hearing
notice was actually served on
plaintiffs to appear before the
Tribunal on 18th February, 1931,
in order that the Tribunal
might review its judgment of
30th December, 1930. But on 17th
February, 1931, the defendant,
without waiting for the review
to be heard, applied to the
Provincial Commissioner's Court
and obtained an order stopping
the further hearing of the case
before the Tribunal.
This seems to have acted as a
stay for all further proceedings
until on 13th November, 1933,
when the Tribunal served on
defendant a formal decree for
costs- under their judgment of·
30th December, 1930, whereupon
the defendant applied to the
Provincial Commissioner to stay
execution, and was refused as I
have alleged.
The defendant now contends that
the order of the Provincial
Commissioner stopping the
further hearing of the case
before the Tribunal operates as
a general stay, and that
execution cannot be issued under
the judgment, which is in a
state of suspended animation,
as it were, owing to the order
for review made by the
Tribunal-while plaintiffs
contend that defendant having by
his own action prevented the
Tribunal from reviewing their
judgment, the judgment is in
full force and effect and they
are entitled to have execution.
Now the order of the Provincial
Commissioner stopping the
hearing of the case before the
Ga Manche's Court, even
supposing that it was in his
power to order a transfer after
judgment had been given, was, in
my opinion, an incomplete order
and one which, as it stands, is
contrary to law and therefore
void. Section 71 (1) of Cap. HI
under which the power is given
to the Provincial Commissioner's
Court to stop the hearing of a
case reads:-
"The Provincial Commissioner's
Court may, either of " its own
motion or on the application of
a defendant, by order " stop the
hearing of any civil or criminal
cause matter of " question
commenced or brought before any
Tribunal whether "as of first
instance or by way of appeal, or
referred, " transmitted, or
remitted thereto under section
59 or under " section 69 or
otherwise, on such terms as it
may consider " just: and
thereupon the following
provisions shall apply-
" (a) If such cause
matter or question shall appear
to the " Provincial
Commissioner's Court to be one
within " the jurisdiction of
some other Tribunal, it may by
"the same or another order
direct that such cause " matter
or question shall be enquired
of, tried and " determined by
such Tribunal as shall appear to
it "to have jurisdiction over
such cause matter or " question;
or
" (b)
Except in the case of any cause
matter or question " which
relates to. the ownership
possession or occupation of any
land, or which is otherwise one
"properly within the exclusive
jurisdiction of a "Divisional
Court, the Provincial
Commissioner's
n.
" Court may in like manner
direct that such matter " or
question, shall be enquired of,
and determined " by the District
Commissioner's Court, or the
Court " of the Police
Magistrate.
" (c)
In the case of any cause matter
or question. which "cannot under
the provisions hereinabove in
this " section contained
properly be enquired of, tried
and " determined by the District
Commissioner's Court or "by the
Court of the Police Magistrate,
the "Provincial Commissioner's
Court may in like " manner
direct that such cause matter or
question " shall be enquire
of, trial and determined in the
" Divisional Court."
The section, in fad, has to be
read as a whole and then it will
be apparent that the power to
stop the hearing of a case
before a Native Tribunal is but
one step in the process of
transfer of a case, and as soon
as that step is taken " the
following provisions shall
apply". Then follow directions
that by the same order or by
another the Provincial
Commissioner may decide as to
what Court he shall transfer the
case to according as it falls
under subsections
(a), (b)
and
(c).
The Commissioner is in fact
given power to decide as to
which course he shall follow,-
but he must follow one, and he
has no power to order that the
hearing of the case shall stop
without at the same time making
an order for transfer. To hold
that he could would amount to
giving' him the power to deny
justice contrary to Magna
Charta, as in fact has happened
in this case where it has not
been possible for anything to be
done since the order stopping
the hearing was made owing to
the fact that the Commissioner
has not appreciated the phrase
and thereupon the
following " provisions shall
apply".
In my opinion the order of the
Provincial Commissioner being
void the order for review by the
Tribunal is in force for what it
is worth, and the parties must
go hack to the Tribunal and have
the review heard and determined.
We agree that until the review
is heard and determined
execution should not issue.
We express no opinion as to
whether the review order is good
or bad.
The appeal is upheld and
execution will he stayed pending
the final determination of the
matter by the Tribunal.
As the defendant is responsible
for obtaining the incomplete
order of the Provincial
Commissioner whereby he has
succeeded in holding up the
matter for over three years we
think there should be no order
as to costs.