OKYERE vs. BOYE ADJEI [1961]DLHC5497

Date	1961-01-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC5497

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J

E. N. MOORE FOR W. OFORI ATTA FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

J. O. DADEY FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1961]DLHC5497
																																						<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">OKYERE <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">BOYE ADJEI<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;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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 34&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"> 9TH JANUARY, 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.
N. MOORE FOR W. OFORI ATTA FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

J.
O. DADEY FOR DEFENDANT-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">

ADUMUA-BOSSMAN, J<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.<o:p></o:p>This appeal is against a judgment of the New Juabeng Native Court
“A”, and is by the plaintiff-appellant who will be referred to shortly as the
plaintiff, against the defendant-respondent who will be referred to shortly as
the defendant. By his writ the plaintiff claimed 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">“plaintiff as occupant of Ayokoh-Mrontoh stool on behalf of
himself, principal chiefs, elders and members of the stool family, claims from
the defendant, recovery of possession of land situate lying and being at right
of street leading to Omanhene’s (New Juabenhene’s) palace (Koforidua) which
said land defendant alleges to have been sold to him by Yeboa Korie, former
Ayokohene and Opanyin Kofi Teng, Wirempehene of Mrontoh (deceased) which said
sale of the said land is contrary to native customary law.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The concluding and operative part of the judgment of the trial
court in favour of the defendant was 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">“After hearing the parties and their witnesses and examination of
all papers tendered in evidence by parties, the court finds that the
plaintiff’s only claim is whether the sale of the land was proper or
constitutional; if not, it should be restored to the stool which he occupies.
The main findings of the court are whether the sale was proper and
constitutional or not. This court holds that any property of a stool sold by
its occupant with the concurrence of his elder or elders and his linguist or
linguists then is constitutional and proper. It finds that many senior members
of the family witnessed the sale. According to plaintiff ‘s destoolment record
tendered in evidence by him, one Kofi Teng was Krontihene of the Ayoko Mrontoh
Division who said he was senior to Kofi Bruku (p.5 record); he was represented
and signed the document, as well as Kofi Apoakwah and Okyeame Kwadjo Akuoko of
the same Division.<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">Judgment therefore entered for Defendant with costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff appeals against the decision on the grounds set out
in the additional grounds filed on his behalf on the 31st October, 1960. There
are two matters to be dealt with at the out-set before entering upon the merits
of the appeal. The first is the question whether the record of the plaintiff’s
destoolment proceedings which he tendered through his first witness Mr. Hinson,
former registrar of the court of the defunct Provincial Commissioner’s Court
and which was admitted against the defendant’s objection as exhibit E, was
rightly admitted. As to this I have no hesitation in holding that the
depositions in that former enquiry were wrongly admitted in the action. The
legal position is explained in the The Duchess of Kingston’s case1(1) 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">“what has been said at the bar is certainly true, as a general
principle, that a transaction between two parties, in judicial proceedings,
ought not to be binding upon a third; for it would be unjust to bind any person
who could not be admitted to make a defence, or to examine witnesses, or to
appeal from a judgment he might think erroneous; and therefore the depositions
of witnesses in another cause in proof of a fact, the verdict of a jury finding
the fact, and the judgment of the court upon facts found, although evidence
against the parties and all claiming under them, are not, in general, to be
used to the prejudice of strangers”.<o:p></o:p>