DONKOR vs. DANSO [1959]DLHC2009

Date	1959-03-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2009

OLLENNU J.

AMPAH-SARPONG (FOR THE APPELLANT).

KORANTENG-ADDOW (FOR THE RESPONDENT).

[1959]DLHC2009
																																						<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">DONKOR <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">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">DANSO<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (LANDS DIVISION), ACCRA]<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 147<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:
25TH MARCH, 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">

AMPAH-SARPONG
(FOR THE APPELLANT).<o:p></o:p>

KORANTENG-ADDOW
(FOR THE RESPONDENT).<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">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts, and proceeded):-<o:p></o:p>The Court
of Appeal has laid down the principle which should guide the Supreme Court as
to the proper method of ascertaining the native custom applicable to a
particular case. In Anane v. Mensah (p. 50 of this volume) their Lordships
said:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Native
customary law is peculiarly within the knowledge of the Native Courts, and the
opinion of a superior Native Court on native custom must be preferred to the
opinion of an inferior Native Court, unless it is either contrary to a decision
of the Supreme Court or of the Privy Council on the point, or ‘is repugnant to
natural justice, equity and good conscience’.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applying
this principle, I proceed to examine the native custom which the Kwahu Local
Court ‘A’ accepted and applied in determining this case, in order that I may
decide whether it is a custom which the Supreme Court should countenance.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence led by the State Secretary that a subject is at all times compellable
to render customary services to the Stool is very significant in this matter.
One of the incidents of the occupation of Stool land is the liability of the
occupier to perform customary services to the Stool. Where the person in occupation
of the Stool land happens to be a stranger, it is often improper or undesirable
that he should be called upon to render the customary services. In such
circumstances, therefore, performance of those services is commuted into a
contractual tenancy agreement or licence for a composite sum, which might be
termed the purchase-price for the land.<o:p></o:p>In Land
Appeal No. 21/1957 (entitled Baidoo v. Osei &amp; anor.) I stated and explained
this in the judgment delivered by me on the 18th December, 1957, in the
following words:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“By
native custom the subject is entitled to alienate his usufructuary title in the
land without express permission of the Stool, so long as the alienation carries
with it an obligation upon the transferee to recognise the title of the Stool,
and to perform the customary services due to the Stool from the
subject-occupier. Where the transferee is a stranger, i.e., a non-subject of
the Stool, it is usual for the Stool to commute the customary services which so
devolve upon the transferee to a tenancy agreement of one form or another,
since by native custom it may sometimes be undesirable, indeed sacrilegious, to
admit the stranger-transferee to the performance of customary services for the
Stool. Thus, in an Akan State, it would be undesirable that a stranger of a
tribe whose custom is circumcision should perform rites connected with the
Stool. Equally, in a Ga-Adangbe or Ewe State, it would be undesirable that a
stranger of a tribe whose custom is non-circumcision should perform customary
rites for the Stool. In either case it would mean desecration of the Stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If the
stranger who by contract pays rent, tolls, tribute, or purchase-price in lieu
of the customar</main>