The provisions limiting appeals in the Land Acquisition Act 1960 were found to violate judicial power under the Federal Constitution, necessitating adequate compensation assessments.

Introduction

[1] The appellant in Appeal No: 01(f)-47-11-2013(B) ("the Appeal") and the applicants in Reference no 06-3-05-2013(B) ("the Reference") before us seek to challenge the constitutional vires of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 ("the Act"), made by way of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1997 ("Act A999"). Act A999 came into force on 1 March 1998.

[2] The appellant in this appeal and the applicants in the Reference filed objections against the Land Administrator's award disputing the amount of compensation awarded arising out of the acquisition of part of their land. Dissatisfied with the decisions of the High Court, they appealed to the Court of Appeal.

[3] The appellant in the appeal was granted leave by the order of this Court dated 7 October 2013 to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 26 April 2013. The Reference before us is a reference of constitutional questions by the Court of Appeal. By a Consent Order dated 17 April 2013, the applicants' appeal in the Court of Appeal is stayed pending determination of the constitutional questions referred to this Court. For the Reference, it was agreed, as reflected in the order of this Court dated 1 December 2013, that the decision in the Appeal will bind the parties in the Reference.

[4] The Appeal and the Reference focus on the changes made to the Act by Act A999, in particular s 40D which empowers assessors sitting with the judge in the High Court to make the final determination on the amount of reasonable compensation for the acquisition of land under the Act; and subsection 40D(3) and the provision to subsection 49(1) which preclude appeals against the High Court decision on the amount of compensation.

[5] In addition to those issues, the appellant in the appeal also poses to this Court questions on the effect of non-compliance with s 40C and the adequacy of compensation under art 13 of the Federal Constitution in relation to its claim for loss of profit as a result of business extinguishment.

[6] The question of law framed before this Court for the Appeal are as follows:

(1) Whether there is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court (consisting of a judge and two assessors) involving compensation for land acquisition on a question of law in the light of s 40D(3) and the proviso to s 49 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1960 ("the Act") as amended by Act A999?;

(2) Whether the amendment to the Act by amendment Act A999 which came into effect on 1 March 1998 would apply to land acquisitions instituted prior to the amendment with the effect of changing radically the hearing process as regards the role of the assessors and further limiting a vested right of appeal?

(3) Whether the amended s 40D is constitutionally valid in providing for a conclusive determination by the assessors (as opposed to the Judge) as to the amount of compensation in the face of art 121 of the Federal Constitution that contemplates that the judicial power of the courts should be exercised by judges only?

(4) Whether s 40D(3) could validly apply to limit appeals if the decision-making process provided for in s 40D(3) is constitutionally invalid?

(5) Whether the limitation of appeals in s 40D(3) or the proviso to s 49 could apply in the absence of strict compliance with the new procedure envisaged in s 40C and s 40D?

(6) Whether the safeguard of "adequate compensation" in art 13(2) of the Federal Constitution is met where the Land Administrator refus