DONKOR vs. ASARE AND OTHERS [1960]DLHC137

Date	1960-06-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC137

OLLENNU J.

KORANTENG ADDOW FOR PLAINTIFF.

DEFENDANTS IN PERSON.

[1960]DLHC137
																																						<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" >DONKOR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ASARE AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1960] GLR 187<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
20TH JUNE, 1960.<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">

KORANTENG ADDOW FOR PLAINTIFF.<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 referred to the facts and continued).<o:p></o:p>The occupant
of a stool and the traditional elders of the stool are the repositories of the
tradition and customary law of their state; it is therefore expected that they
should always act in conformity with the customary law. Again, apart altogether
from being an occupant of a stool, Nana Kwadade II, known in his private
capacity as Mr. Ofei Awere, was, before his enstoolment, an outstanding legal
practitioner with considerable knowledge and experience of the customary law.
It is not surprising therefore, that when the defendants, subjects of the
stool, approached Nana Kwadade II and his elders for a grant of a portion of
the stool land, the Omanhene and his elders i.e. the stool, did not by-pass the
family in possession of the land to make the grant, but rather, that they in
turn applied to the family to make the grant direct to the defendants; this
step taken by Nana Kwadade II and his elders is in conformity with the
customary law of our land tenure: see Ohimen v. Adjei and Another (2 W.A.L.R.
275) and Wutor v. Gyebi (unreported).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Only one
ground of appeal was filed and argued; it is that the judgment is against the
weight of evidence. Under this ground it was submitted by counsel as follows:<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">“(1) that
there was sufficient evidence in proof of the plaintiff’s title, and
consequently the Native Court misdirected itself in refusing to grant the
plaintiff the declaration of title he sought even if it could be said that he
is not entitled to an order for recovery of possession, and <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">“(2) that
the defendants are mere licensees without any interests in the land, and could
be ejected at will, and therefore the Native Court was wrong in holding that
the notice to quit given to them was defective.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion the second point made by counsel is a question of law, not weight of
evidence. I am further of the opinion that the first point also involved
important principles of customary law.<o:p></o:p>Taking
counsel’s first submission the question which arises is: did the plaintiff
prove title to any land, and if he did, to what land? For his title the
plaintiff relies upon sale by customary law. Among the essentials of a sale of
land by customary law are:<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">(1) Identification
of the area of land sold, and<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">(2) Placing
the purchaser in possession of the area sold in the presence of owners of the
lands which form boundaries with the land being sold to ensure that no one
else’s land is delivered to the purchaser.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
identification of the land is made by demarcating the boundaries of the land;
if it were agricultural land, boundary trees are planted or marks made on
existing trees in the presence of the owners of the adjoining land, and if it
were building land in a town some stones or sticks (in modern days pillars) are
fixed at the corners.<o:p></o:p>