NKANSAH II vs. YIADOM III [1960]DLHC5427

Date	1960-03-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1960]DLHC5427

VISCOUNT SIMONDS LORD JENKINS AND THE RT. HON. MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA

SIR FRANK SOSKICE Q.C. AND MARK SMITH FOR THE APPELLANT

R. WALTON AND R. F. SOLOMAN FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1960]DLHC5427
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">NKANSAH II <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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">YIADOM III<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">[1961] GLR 7&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;DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 21ST MARCH, 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 black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

SIR
FRANK SOSKICE, Q.C. AND MARK SMITH FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

R.
WALTON AND R. F. SOLOMAN 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 black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VISCOUNT SIMONDS LORD JENKINS
AND THE RT. HON. MR. L. M. D., DE SILVA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MR.
M.L.D. DE SILVA<o:p></o:p>M.L.D. De Silva delivered the judgment of their Lordships. The
only point in dispute between parties in this appeal and the only point for
decision by their Lordships is whether or not the plea of estoppel is entitled
to succeed. It is agreed by the parties that if the plea of estoppel succeeds
the appeal ought to be allowed and that if it fails it should be dismissed.
Their Lordships will now examine the judgment and proceedings in the 1940
action upon which the plea is based.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That action was begun in 1940 in the Tribunal of the Paramount
Chief of Kwahu between Bukuruwa stool as plaintiff and the Chief of Atipradaa
and one of his subjects as defendants for a declaration of title to the land.
The suit was thereafter transferred to the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast in
March, 1942. There was some dispute as to whether the land which was the
subject-matter of that action was identical with the land claimed by the
present appellant but in view of what follows it is not necessary for their
Lordships to decide that point. Their Lordships will assume without deciding
against the respondent (who succeeds on the appeal) that it was identical.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In July, 1942, on the application of the Burukuwa stool, the Chief
of Wusuta was added as a defendant on the ground that the original defendants
were his subjects and claimed to occupy the land under his authority. The
Bukuruwa stool in its statement of claim (in the 1940 action) pleaded that the
predecessor of the Chief of Atipradaa had been permitted by the Bukuruwa to
hunt, reside and make farms on payment of tolls but now refused to pay tribute
and, in concert with the Chief of Wusuta, claimed the property as part of the
stool property of the Wusuta stool.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In 1943, a surveyor and the parties visited the land in order to
prepare a plan for the purposes of the case. In January, 1944, the respondent
made an application to be joined as a defendant on the ground that when the
surveyor visited the land the elders of his stool had been invited to be
present and had discovered that a large part of the land claimed in the action
was the respondent’s stool land. On the 11th February, 1944, this application,
though opposed was granted. An appeal against the order for joinder was
dismissed on the 22nd November, 1944, by the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 25th August, 1945, on an application made by the present
appellant (plaintiff in the 1940 action), the Paramount Chief of Kwahu was
joined as co-plaintiff on the ground that he had an interest in all Kwahu lands
and that the lands in dispute were a portion of the lands held under him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thereafter the respondent took no further part in the 1940 action.
It has been said on his behalf in this action that he did so because of an
arrangement with the Paramount Chief in order not to embarrass him in the
proceedings against the Wusutas. But he took no steps to have himself
discharged from the action. It is argued fo</main>