NANA DARKO FREMPONG II vs. MANKRADO K. EFFAH [1961]DLHC5423

Date	1961-04-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5423

LORD RADCLIFFE LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM AND LORD GUEST

E. F. N. GRATIAEN

Q. C. AND J. G. LE QUESNE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

M. L. LYELL

Q. C. AND J. DEAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1961]DLHC5423
																																						<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">NANA DARKO FREMPONG 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">MANKRADO K. EFFAH<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"><a name="_gjdgxs"></a>[1961] GLR 205&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"> 20TH APRIL, 1961.<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">

E.
F. N. GRATIAEN, Q. C. AND J. G. LE QUESNE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

M.
L. LYELL, Q. C. AND J. DEAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

LORD RADCLIFFE LORD KEITH OF
AVONHOLM AND LORD GUEST<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
LORD GUEST<o:p></o:p>Lord Guest delivered the judgment of their Lordships. This appeal
is concerned with a dispute as to the ownership of a parcel of land in the Bemu
River Forest Reserve of the then Gold Coast.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In 1951, the Ohene of Aperade in an action against the Ohene of Achiasi
for their respective stools claimed a declaration of title to certain lands
called Amanfupong and Aperade and more particularly described in the writ of
summons, and £G500 damages for mesne profits. On the 11th August, 1951,
Dennison J. gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and awarded nominal
damages of £G5. The ground of his judgment was that of the two parties only the
plaintiffs could be said to have acted timeously in asserting their rights. The
West African Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Achiasi holding that the
onus of proving that they were entitled to the declaration lay on the
plaintiffs, Aperade, and as they had failed to discharge the onus, they were
not entitled to the relief. Aperade appealed to the Privy Council, and the Board
on the 2nd July, 1956, delivered judgment dismissing the appeal. There is no
substantial difference between the ground of judgment in the Privy Council and
in the West African Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the interval between the decision of the West African Court of
Appeal and the judgment of the Privy Council proceedings were commenced in the
court of the Reserve Settlement Commissioner of the Gold Coast on the 16th
April, 1953, in regard to the proposed Bemu River Forest Reserve. These
proceedings were taken under the Forests Ordinance, 1927.1(1) By section 4, the
Governor is empowered to constitute certain lands as a forest reserve and by
section 5 notification of intention to create a forest reserve must be given in
the Gazette and a Reserve Settlement Commissioner appointed. By section 7, the
commissioner must give notice of the enquiry, stating the time and manner in
which claims affecting the land may be made. The commissioner is directed by
section 9 (1) to enquire into the existence, nature and extent of the rights in
respect of which he has received claims. By section 9 (2) if a dispute arises
as to the ownership of any land within the proposed forest reserve, the
commissioner may refer the dispute to the native court, “provided that it shall
not be necessary to refer any dispute which has already been decided by any
Native Court or other Court.” If the dispute is not within the jurisdiction of
the native court, it is to be referred to the Supreme Court (section 9 (4)).
The commissioner is directed by section 9 (6) to accept and adopt the judgment
of the native court or Supreme Court for the purposes of the enquiry and of his
judgment. By section 15, when the commissioner has completed his enquiry he
must deliver judgment which shall, inter alia, (c) specify the rights in
respect of which the commissioner has received claims and any other rights
alleged to exist, (d) specify the claims which he considers not to have been
established, and (e) admit or prohibit the exercise of all rights which he
considers to have been established.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The area of land which was the subject of the dispute in the
action between Aperade and Achiasi already referred to was excluded by
Commissioner Pullen from the enquiry at that time by dividing the Reserve into
two blocks. No question arises regarding Block II and the matter of Block I was
taken up again by Commissioner Riley on the 25th October, 1956, after the
decision of the Privy Council had been given. He was satisfied from the plans
produced that Aperade were claiming all the Reserve as part of their whole
claim, while Achiasi only claimed a part. The boundaries of Achiasi claim were
not clear and Achiasi were ordered to have their boundary cleared and cut.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</</main>