No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Legal Effect of Executive Confirmation of Findings or Awards by Quasi-Judicial Bodies in Ghana
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The functioning of society is considerably aided by legal rules and social norms. The extent, scope and complexity of such laws and norms are determined in the final analysis by the level of socio-economic activity, growth and development. Corresponding economic and social institutions of an administrative nature tend to evolve and become intertwined with such developments. In order to cope with increasing responsibilities, a government may establish statutory bodies to deal with certain aspects of governmental activity of a quasi-judicial nature.
In developing countries such as Ghana, therefore, one often finds in the Statute books enactments conferring certain powers on quasi-judicial bodies. In Ghana, powers are conferred on such bodies to carry out investigations and make findings of fact concerning such matters as chieftaincy disputes, the determination of boundaries between two communities, the settlement of trade disputes, etc. Perhaps, recognising the limitations of such bodies, the decisions based on the facts found by such bodies do not usually become binding on the persons or the institutions to be affected in die same way as die decisions of the regular courts do. To become binding, the law usually provides that two conditions are satisfied:
(i) The findings or decisions must be confirmed by the executive or the minister acting in that behalf; and
(ii) they must be published in an official gazette, bulletin or in any such official publication.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1988
References
1 As far back as 1907, the then Governor of the Gold Coast, Sir John Pikersgill, by Proclamation issued in exercise of his powers under section 5 of the Chiefs Ordinance, 1904 (No. 4 of 1904) appointed the then Secretatry on Native Affairs to hold an inquiry as to whether the destoolment of a paramount chief had been in accordance with native law and custom. The findings and decision of the inquiry were subsequently confirmed by the Governor in Gold Coast Government Gazette No. 99 dated 31 10 1908 at 1145.Google ScholarFor reference to modern legislation in Ghana on the matter: see the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81) s. 39(1), (2), (3) and (5)Google Scholar; the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299), s. 20Google Scholar; the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Decree, 1972 (NRCD 176), s. 9(3)Google Scholar and the Committee of Inquiry (Recent Disturbances in the Police Force) (Implementation of Findings) Decree, 1979 (AFRCD 12), s. 1(1)Google Scholar
2 High Court, Accra, 22 03 1983; digested in [1982–1983] GLRD 71.Google Scholar
3 Act 299.
4 Author's emphasis.
5 Author's emphasis.
6 (1886) 6 QBD 63 at 65.Google Scholar
7 (1846) M & S 467 at 469.Google Scholar
8 (1862) 6 LT (NS) 713.Google Scholar
9 See the Ghana Supreme Court decision in Amoah v. Poku [1965] GLR 155 at p. 157;Google Scholarthe recent Ghana High Court decision in Kariyavoulas v. Osei, High Court, Sekondi, 6 05 1983; digested in [1982–1983] GLRD 70 perGoogle ScholarJ., Twumasi; Priestman v. Thomas [1894] 9 P & D 210, CA;Google ScholarRitchie v. Malcolm [1902] 2 IR 403Google Scholar and Hill v. Clifford [1907] 2 Ch 236.Google Scholar
10 The two different types of arbitration envisaged under Act 199 as rightly observed by the court.
11 There is no mention of the award being confirmed by the minister or its being binding on the parties consequent upon publication.
12 Author's emphasis.
13 (18th ed) at pp. 9 and 10; author's emphasisGoogle Scholar.
14 Author's emphasis.
15 Author's emphasis.
16 Author's emphasis.
17 (1953) 14 WACA 257 at p. 259.Google Scholar
18 Court of Appeal, sitting as the Supreme Court, Accra, 23 10 1980; digested in [1980] GLRD 71; Coram; Sowah and J.J.S.C., Charles, Lassey and J.J.A., Francois and J., AgyepongGoogle Scholar
19 Author's emphasis.
20 See also the decision of the Ghana High Court in Republic v. Registrar, High Court, Sekondi, 19 08 1980;Google Scholar digested in [1982–83] GLRD 36 where it was held that the children of a deceased man who had lived with him in a customary family house and still lived in the house after his death—not as rent paying tenants—could not by their conduct confer jurisdiction on a rent magistrate under the Rent Act, 1963 (Act 220), to issue an ejectment order against themGoogle Scholar.
21 It is to be noted section 15(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1965 (Act 299) provides, inter alia, that the“subsection shall not be read as preventing the Minister from referring any trade dispute to an arbitrator under subsection 2 of section 3 of that Ordinance [Cap. 93] with the consent of the parties at any time.” Author's emphasisGoogle Scholar.
22 [1980] AC 37, H.L.Google Scholar
23 (11 & 12Geo. 6, c. 63).
24 (1986)21 DLR I.
25 (Man.), c. 65 (C.C.S.M., c. 11, 175).
26 For further detailed discussion of the right of parties to oust a court's jurisdiction by private agreement, see Bimpong-Buta, S.Y., “Legal Effect of Ouster Clauses” (1981–1982) RGL 113 et seq.Google Scholar
27 [1982] 3 All E.R. 263, CA.Google Scholar See also Payne v. Lord Harris of Greenwich [1981] 2 All E.R. 842 at 853.Google Scholar
28 See Eveleigh, L. J. in Felix v. Shiva (supra) where his lordship said at p. 226:Google Scholar: “If a power is given by statute, and the statute lays down the way in which the power is to be brought down into existence, it must be brought into existence by that method and none other…”.
29 A chieftaincy dispute first determined by the High Court (Hayfron-Benjamin, J. as he then was) reported in [1917] 1 GLR 321Google Scholar: on a further appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal: see [1927] 1 GLR 60Google Scholar and finally determined on an application for review by the full bench of the Court of Appeal: see [1978] GLR 467Google Scholar.
30 See Local Government Bulletin No. 15 of 28 03 1969 at p. 110.Google ScholarThe confirmation was made in pursuance of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81), s. 39(5)(a)Google Scholar which provided that,“Where the President confirms or amends the findings of a Judicial Commissioner, a notice of the findings as confirmed or amended—(a) shall be published in the Local Government Bulletin and when so published shall be conclusive.”
31 See Local Government Bulletin No. 37 of 5 09 1969.Google Scholar
32 See The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed) at 367.Google Scholar
33 See [1978] GLR 467 at 473.Google Scholar
34 Ibid at 469, per Francois J.A.
35 Ibid at 474.
36 For further trenchant criticism of the Court of Appeal decision reported in [1972] 1 GLR 60Google Scholar which was in any case set aside by the full bench of the Court of Appeal: see the dictum of Adade J.S.C. in Sparkodee I v. Boateng II, Supreme Court, Accra, 18 05 1983;Google Scholardigested in [1982–83] GLRD 73 where he said, “If the information is wrongly conveyed, the question of functus officio does not ariseGoogle Scholar. The finding or decision on the appeal was not the NLC's; it was that of the committee. So it is the committee that was functus officio, not the NLC.
37 [1973] 1 GLR 483, CA.Google Scholar
38 Ibid at 489, CA. Author's emphasis.
39 Court of Appeal, 26 02 1981Google Scholar; Coram Charles Crabbe, J.S.C., Edusei, and Edward Wiredu, J. J. A.; digested in [1981] GLRD 17.Google Scholar
40 Supreme Court, Accra, 29 03 1983; digested in [1982–1983] GLRD 72.Google Scholar
41 El 38 of 1979.
42 AFRCD 12, s. 1(1). (Author's emphasis.)
43 Section 15(2) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1979, like AFRCD 12, s. (3)Google Scholar and other subsequent legislations, i.e. the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (PNDCL 78), s. 24(1)Google Scholar raise the issue of legal effect of ouster clauses. For an extensive discussion of that issue: see Bimpong-Buta, S.Y., “Legal Effect of Ouster Clauses” (1981–1982) 13 RGL et seq.Google Scholar See also the concurring opinion of Taylor, J. S. C. in Republic v. Court of Appeal; Ex parte Agyekum, Supreme Court, 29 03 1983;Google Scholar digested in [1982–83] GLRD 72 to be discussed below.
44 See also the decision of the Court of Appeal in Adusah v. Attorney-General, 26 02 1981;Google Scholar digested in [1981] GLRD 16 where a similar executive act confirming the dismissal of the appellant on the basis of a recommendation by the same committee of inquiry set up under the same El 38 of 1979 was also set aside because the findings of a negligence as recommended by the committee could not be supported. It must however be noted that the decision in Karkwa and Adusah were subsequently faulted by the Supreme Court in its decision—Attorney-General v. Tagoe, Accra, 29 07 1985Google Scholar (unreported) not because of the wrongness of the principle enunciated, i.e. that a confirmed executive act founded on a recommendation by an investigative body could be questioned by any appropriate judicial process but for the wrong interpretation placed by the Court of Appeal, on the true legal effect of section 3(2) (a) and (b) of AFRCD 23 and s. 17 of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1979Google Scholar. To that extent it could be argued that the pronouncement of the Court of Appeal is at least entitled to some respect: see the House of Lords decision in Minton v. Minton [1979] All E.R. 79.Google Scholar
45 Above footnote 40.
46 NRCD 172.
47 The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court and the High Court by sections 119 and 126 of the abrogated Constitution, 1979Google Scholar, has been continued in force by the Provisional National Defence Council (Establishment) Proclamation, 1981, s. 9(1)Google Scholar and the Provisional National Defence Council (Establishment) Proclamation (Supplementary and Consequential Provisions) Law, 1982 (PNDCL 42), s. 66(2)Google Scholar. For the meaning of the word“final” see Republic v. Military Tribunal; Ex parte Ofosu-Amaah [1973] 2 GLR 227.Google Scholar
48 The law precludes the courts from hearing at first instance any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. Jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters is vested in the judicial committees of the traditional councils and regional and national houses of chiefs. See the Chieftaincy Act, 1971(Act 370), s. 15(1)Google Scholar and the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), s. 52Google Scholar and the Court of Appeal decision in Tobah v. Kweikumah, 14 04 1981; digested in [1981] GLRD 59.Google Scholar
49 Court of Appeal, Accra, 4 03 1986, Civil Appeal No. 57/84 (unreported)Google Scholar.
50 See the Ghana High Court decision in Kessie v. Charmant [1973] 2 GLR 194Google Scholar where a contract in favour of Ghana's ambassador to Liberia was nullified on grounds of public policy.
51 The main State institution which Ghana relies on for the shipment of its exports.
52 Such workers are in fact lucky to have such accommodation in the face of the acute shortage of houses facing the majority of the workers in the same institution.
53 A very much needed facility to the worker which should serve as an incentive for him to remain in government or public employment as long as possible.
54 See Maine Ancient Law 1861 (1st ed), Chap. 5.Google Scholar
55 (1875) LR 19 Eq. 462 at 465.Google Scholar
56 [1980] AC 37 at 67, H.L. (Author's emphasis.)Google Scholar
57 Cap. 93, s. 2 defines “trade dispute” as meaning “any dispute or difference between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of the employment, or with conditions of labour, of any person.”