ANANE vs. MENSAH [1959]DLCA1988

Date	1959-02-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA1988

VAN LARE AG. C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A

OLLENNU J.

PREMPEH (FOR APPELLANT) NOT CALLED UPON TO ARGUE.

[1959]DLCA1988
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ANANE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">MENSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 50<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
2ND FEBRUARY, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

PREMPEH
(FOR APPELLANT) NOT CALLED UPON TO ARGUE.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE AG. C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.
AND OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE AG CJ.<o:p></o:p>The facts
in this appeal are not in dispute. Briefly stated they are as follows. The
respondent inherited his uncle’s cocoa farm, adjoining which was virgin forest
land, the subject-matter of this suit. The appellant was a caretaker employed
by the respondent in respect of his said farm. It appears that during his
caretakership the appellant, himself a subject of Nkawie Stool, approached the
Stool (as owners of the disputed land) for a grant to him. The Stool
accordingly made a grant to him, and sent an agent to demarcate the extent of
such grant. In the result, seven acres of forest land adjoining the
respondent’s farm, of which he was a caretaker, were granted to the appellant,
and he cultivated them.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent instituted this action against the appellant, claiming the said
land. The matter for decision was purely a question of native customary law,
that is to say, whether the Nkawie Stool could make a valid grant of forest
land adjoining the farm of a subject to another subject of the Stool.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
evidence as to the relevant custom was that led by the appellant, and consisted
of the evidence given by Nana Kofi Marfo, Nkawiepaninhene, the occupant of the
Nkawie Stool, who testified that any forest land of his Stool could be
allocated to any of his subjects to cultivate provided it was not a farmstead
nor fallow land.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
native trial-Court, despite this evidence as to custom, expressed the opinion
that “it is against the practice of native custom that plaintiff’s immediate or
continuous forest adjoining his farm be cut for defendant,” and therefore gave
judgement for the plaintiff -respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On appeal
to the Asantehene’s “A2” Court, a contrary opinion as to the custom was
expressed, whereby they held that the Court below misdirected itself on the
native custom. It is plain, therefore, that in their opinion any forest land on
Nkawie Stool land, whether or not adjoining and existing farm, could be
allocated to any subject farmer, provided it was not a secondary forest or
fallow. They therefore (rightly in our view) reversed the decision of the
native trial - Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Land
Court, Kumasi, on appeal reversed this decision of the Asantehene’s “A2” Court
on the grounds that (a) the native trial-Court had the advantage of an
inspection of the locus in quo (as to which we find no supporting evidence),
and (b) evidence before the native trial-Court supported the respondent’s case.
We are also unable to find any evidence in support of the respondent’s case
which, as we have said, turned wholly upon the question of native customary
law. It therefore turns out that the learned Judge of the Land Court, Kumasi,
reversed the reasoned decision of the Asantehene’s “A2” Court without any
reasons whatsoever.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>