EMILE NAJIB BITTAR V. THE PRINCIPAL IMMIGRATION OFFICER

Foster-Sutton, P. This is an appeal from a judgment of Korsah, J., by which he refused an application by the appellant for;-

(a) an Order of Prohibition that the Principal Immigration Officer, Accra, the Passport Control Officer, Accra, and the Superintendent of Police, Ashanti, Kumasi” be forbidden to withdraw the Immigration Officer's Conditional Certificate Form “B” granted to the appellant on the 6th November, 1950, and that they be forbidden to deport the appellant or to request him to leave the Gold Coast; and

(b) an Order of Certiorari to remove into the Supreme Court the record of the Immigration Officer’s Conditional Certificate Form “B” issued to the appellant on the 18th June, 1951, together with all other papers relating thereto.

Shortly put the facts are that the appellant, who is not a “native of the Gold Coast”, was granted a certificate of conditional entry, Form “B”, on the 6th November, 1950, to enter the Gold Coast. The conditional certificate was given under the provisions of sub-regulation (2) of regulation 3 of the Immigration Regulations, 1947; and it was issued subject to the following conditions, imposed under the provisions of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 6 of the same regulations, which were endorsed on the back of the certificate:-

“(a) This pass is only valid while the subject is employed by Messrs. Captan and Company Limited.

“(b) Subject should not without permission of the Principal Immigration ; Officer accept employment from any other firm or set up business of his own.”

It was admitted that the appellant did not comply with the conditions so imposed. As a result of this non-compliance the Principal Immigration Officer caused

notice to be served on the appellant on the 19th April, 1951, notifying him that the certificate “should be withdrawn” and that he would be issued with another one valid for one month and subject to the conditions which are set out in the notice which is exhibited as appendix “A” to the appellant’s affidavit filed in these proceedings:

Two periods are stated in the original certificate, i.e. six months and two years, but both such periods are subject to the conditions endorsed on the back of it, to which I have already referred.

The main arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant were, firstly, that neither the Immigration Ordinance,.1947, nor the regulations made thereunder empower the Immigration Officer to withdraw a certificate issued to cover a period of two years and substitute therefore one valid only for one month, secondly, that sub-regulation (2) of regulation 6 of the regulations, which provides that upon contravention of any of the additional conditions imposed under sub- regulation (1) of the regulation, the person upon whom such conditions have been imposed may be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and deported, is subject to regulation 5 of the regulations, thirdly, the appellant having been acquitted when charged with remaining in the Gold Coast for a period of over six months without obtaining from the Immigration Officer a certificate that he was a fit and proper person to be received in the Gold Coast without making a deposit of money or giving security, Form “A” in the Schedule to the regulations, the respondents cannot exercise any of the powers under the Ordinance or regulations without an order of the Court, fourthly, that a person cannot be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant except by a Court upon a conviction for contravening conditions imposed under regulation 6 (1) of the regulations, and fifthly, that it was unreasonable to treat the appellant as having contravened a condition of the certificate, a reasonable explanation having been given regarding such contravention.

In my opinion the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant are not well founded. Section 19 of the Ordinance expressly provides that any person who enters the Gold Coast and breaks any of the conditions subject to which he his permitted to enter may be treated “as a prohibited immigrant”; sub-regulation (2) 6f regulation 6 of the regulations contains a similar provision and goes on to provide that a person deemed to be a prohibited immigrant may be deported. Neither the section nor the regulation requires the intervention of the Courts before the consequences of a breach of the conditions attach, and the fact that there may be an explanation of the breach does not affect the position if there his, in fact, been a breach.

It follows that, in my opinion, the judgment appealed against ought to be affirmed. I would accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs fixed at £2119s. 0d.

Coussey, J.A. I concur. Windsor-Aubrey, J. I concur.

Appeal dismissed.