ADOAKU vs. NYAMALOR [1961]DLSC1838

Date	1961-03-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1961]DLSC1838

KORSAH C.J. JSC

CRABBE JSC

BLAY JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANT

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1961]DLSC1838
																																						<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" >

ADOAKU

[SUPREME COURT]

[1963] 1 GLR 279

DATE: 13TH MARCH, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
FOR THE APPELLANT.

</div>

KORSAH C.J., CRABBE AND BLAY
JJ.S.C.

</div>

&nbsp;

This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Accra,
which reversed the judgment of the East Accra Local Court given in favour of
the appellant. The appellant by his writ of summons issued in the local court,
claimed a declaration of title to three pieces or parcels of land which he
claimed the defendant, the respondent herein, had wrongfully entered upon. The
three pieces or parcels of land were fully described in the said writ. The
appellant’s case was that he as head of Abafum quarter in Labadi, was the
proper person to grant or alienate lands attached to the said quarter; that the
respondent purporting to have received a grant from the Labadi chief, had
entered upon the three pieces or parcels of land without his appellant’s,
consent or authority. He therefore claimed £G50 damages for trespass and an
order of injunction restraining the respondent his representatives, agents and
or servants from entering upon the said lands and in any manner interfering
with his, the appellant’s, rights thereon. The appellant in support of his
claim gave evidence to the effect that Labadi was divided into seven quarters
and each quarter had its “quarter lands” as well as “outskirts lands” adjoining
the quarter, and that it is the head of the quarter who has the right to deal
with the “outskirts lands” of the quarter. He then proceeded as follows:

“Anybody wanting a land has to approach the head of the particular
quarters and if the land has not been allocated to anybody else, the head will
give out the land to the party. The custom at Labadi is that the head of the
quarters gives out land to people requiring portions. The Labadi Mantse never
gives out land as the lands belong to various quarters.”

Under cross-examination the appellant repeated the custom as
stated above and went on to state that it was because the ex-chief tried to
sell quarter lands, contrary to custom, that he was destooled. His evidence on
this point was that, “The Mantse had no authority to give out any quarter land
whether by purchase or gift. He tried to do this, and as this was an
uncustomary practice, we destooled him.”

The appellant next called five witnesses, some of whom were heads
of quarters in Labadi, who all confirmed that the Labadi Mantse had no right to
grant or sell quarter lands or “outskirts lands” attached to a quarter and that
it was the head of a quarter who had the right and authority to do so. None of
these witnesses was shaken in cross-examination.

The respondent’s case was that he had purchased the land in
dispute from one Herman Kwesah Foli, who had originally acquired it from the
Labadi Mantse, and that finding that the land had been re-demarcated, he
approached the Labadi Mantse personally and obtained a supplementary deed of
grant from the Labadi stool. He maintained that the Labadi chief had the right
and authority to make grants in respect of all lands in Labadi and cited the
case of Mr. Ako Adjei who, having obtained a grant of land from the Abafum quarters,
was later forced to re-purchase the same land from one G. T. Nubuor who had
purchased from the Labadi Mantse. Under cross-examination however, he confessed
that he did not know the custom at Labadi governing the alienation of lands. In
support of his case he called G. T. Nubuor who testified that he had once sold
a piece of land to Mr. Ako Adjei, which he had originally bought from Nii Adjei
Onano, ex-Labadi Mantse. The next witness called by him was Asafoatse Tutuani
II. Under cross-examination by the court, this witness deposed:

“There are six quarters at Labadi and they have their outskirts
lands. The outskirts lands are under the control of the heads of the quarters.
If anybody wanted an outskirt land he had to approach the head of the quarters.
If that party went straight to the Manche, the Manche had to invite the heads
of the quarters and inform them in the first instance. It would be wrong if the
chief did not follow this practice. It is wrong if the Labadi Manche alienates
any quarter land without the consent of the quarters.”

It will be seen that the evidence of this witness substantially
supported the case of the appellant. The respondent called no further evidence
to contradict the evidence given by the appellant and his witnesses as regards
the custom in Labadi in respect of alienation of quarter lands and outskirts
lands. Upon the close of the case for the respondent the local court magistrate
decided to visit the land in dispute which he did, accompanied by the parties
to the suit. On the strength of the evidence adduced before him, the local
court magistrate gave judgment in favour of the appellant in the following
terms: