In The Matter Of The Public Lands Acquisition Ordinance, 1924 & Anor V. Chrispin S. Harding (1945)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Application for Conditional Leave to appeal or in the alternative for Special Conditional Leave to appeal—Court has no inherent polver to entertain appeals in order to grant relief in cases of hardship—Rules 31 and 32 of Rules in no way relevant to the question whether or not an appeal lies—No appeal lies from decision of the “Chief Justice” under Section 16 of the Public Lands Ordinance (Cap. 174)—Even if the term “Chief Justice” used in Section 17 could be construed to mean “Supreme Court” the terms of the section expressly negative or bar any right of appeat—Court does not possess powers analogous to those enjoyed by His Majesty in Council under the Royal. Prerogatives—Interpretation of Section 17 of Cap. 174—If Appellant’s contention that appeal does lie were correct this application could be imisconoeived, his proper course would• have been to appeal, against decision refusing him leave to appeal.
Held: Application dismissed.
Cases cited :
Churchill v. Crease, (1928) 5 Bing. 177.
Re Wi Matua, (1908) A.C. 448.
Canadian Pacific Railway v. Toronto, (1911) A.C. 461. Waterhouse v. Gilbert, 15 Q.B.D. 569.
Bryant v. Reading, 17 Q.B.D. 128.
Lyon v. Morris, 19 Q.B.D. 139.
J. C. Zizer for Claimant-Applicant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA :—
This is an application “for Conditional Leave to appeal, or, in the alternative, for Special Conditional Leave to appeal from the decision of His Honour Mr. Justice Ivor L. Brace dated the 29th day of February, 1944, whereby it was amongst other things ordered
that the amount of compensation for a piece of land acquired at New England and the property of claimant be assessed and the value determined at £1,057 11s. 5d. and for any further or other Order as the Court may think fit to make in the interest of Justice”.
We are of opinion that it must fail for two reasons.
First, this CoUrt does not possess (as the applicant in his affidavit suggests that it does) any inherent power to entertain appeals in order to grant relief in cases of hardship, nor are rules 31 and 32 of the Rules of this Court, referred to by the applicant, in any way relevant to the question of whether or not an appeal lies. An appeal only lies to this Court when there is express statutory provision granting it, and of course a general right granted by one enactment is subject to any express exception prescribed in another (Churchill v. Crease, (1928) 5 Bing. 177). In this Colony the general right of appeal to this Court in civil cases is given by section 3 of the West African Court of Appeal (Civil Cases) Ordinance, 1929 (No. 9 of 1929), the relevant parts of which read as follows :—
Leave a Reply