AHMAD vs. AFRIYIE AND OTHERS [1963]DLHC1909

Date	1963-10-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1963]DLHC1909

APALOO J

JANTUAH

FOR THE DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF IN PERSON

[1963]DLHC1909
																																						<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" >

AHMAD

[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]

[1963] 2 GLR 344

DATE: 14TH OCTOBER, 1963.

</div>

COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;

JANTUAH,
FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

</div>

APALOO J.

</div>

&nbsp;

JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.

In this action, the plaintiff claims a declaration of title to a
cocoa farm said to be situate at a place called Nyebiammoawo on Keniago stool
land, damages for trespass and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants from dealing with the said farm.

The plaintiff, who I should judge to be in his late sixties is a
native of Domi, Keniago. He is educated and between 1925-1950 lived away from
home. He must have been employed in some sort of clerical job either at Bekwai
or Kumasi. The Abotendomhene of Keniago, Kwame Yamoah, said he returned home
with a deficit and settled down to making farms. I am not able from the
evidence to form anything like a reliable picture of Keniago. About one thing,
however, I am certain, namely, educated persons are a rarity. In fact Nana
Yamoah said, “We have no clerks in Keniago.” I think that is a little
exaggerated but it is plain to my mind that educated persons are extremely hard
to come by in that town.

The plaintiff is somehow connected with the Keniago stool. I
prefer the evidence that he is a royal of the paramount Keniago stool not
merely as the defence suggested, the Krontihene stool. Nana Owusu Afriyie the
present Keniagohene admitted that the plaintiff at one time contested for the
stool and lost. He would not have done so if he were not a royal of that stool
and considered himself eligible to occupy it. The plaintiff says that he was
employed as a stool clerk by Nana Yaw Barimah in 1950 and that he worked in
this capacity without remuneration for a period of nine years. He says the
chief said as he was one of the royals of the stool, he should sacrifice for
it. In about 1959, Nana Barimah took ill and in order to find time to receive
medical treatment, he abdicated. He was succeeded on the stool by one Kofi
Agyei whose stool name is Nana Kwame Yamoah Ababio. The evidence shows that at
an unspecified date in 1959, the stool elders met to render an account of the
stool properties and formally hand them over to the new chief. According to the
plaintiff, at this meeting, he told the elders that he had served the stool for
nine years without remuneration and that there was a stool cocoa farm which had
almost become a farmstead. He requested that a gift of the farm be made to him
in recognition of his devoted services to the stool. The plaintiff testified
that the elders unanimously agreed and he acknowledged the gift by the payment
of a customary aseda. Thereafter the plaintiff said, he entered into possession
and plucked the cocoa for two seasons without interruption. In December 1960,
Nana Yamoah Ababio was detained under the Preventive Detention Act.1 He was
succeeded on the stool by the first defendant who was installed on the 1st
April, 1961. The latter interfered with the plaintiff’s rights to the farm and
thus gave rise to this action.

The defendants for their part say that no such gift as the
plaintiff alleges was ever made of the farm in dispute to the plaintiff.
Although they admitted that the plaintiff was at one time in possession of the
farm, they say he was merely a caretaker of it and took charge of the farm as
caretaker at his own request and with Nana Yaw Barimah’s consent. The
defendants say further that the plaintiff rendered accounts to Nana Yaw Barimah
and when Nana Yamoah Ababio came on the stool, the farm in dispute was one of
the farms handed to him as stool property. The farm retained its public
character when the first defendant came on the stool and was one of the farms
handed to him as stool property. The defendants tendered in evidence an
inventory of the stool property bearing the date the 30th September, 1961. At
page one of it appears “four cocoa farms at Domi-Keniago.” The defendants also
deny that the plaintiff was at any time employed as a stool clerk and say if
the stool needed the services of a literate person, they got one at random.

As to whether or not the plaintiff was employed as a clerk by the
stool, I do not feel any doubt that I must accept the plaintiff’s version. It
seems to me to accord wholly with the probabilities of the case. One knows from
experience that often a need arises for a stool to require the services of an
educated person and often stools employ such persons who are generally known as
stool clerks. For a long time prior to 1950, the Keniago stool, perhaps through
want of funds, employed no clerk. In that year, the plaintiff arrived-an
elderly and experienced man who has come to settle at home for good. He was
himself a royal. It seems to me to be only natural that he should be asked to
perform the services which the stool needed and which either from want of means
or unavailability of suitable persons, the stool was unable to afford. Indeed a
very pressing need arose for the services of a clerk when the Keniago stool
found itself in litigation with the Nkawie stool. In those circumstances, the
plaintiff would have been a perfect godsend. Upon his return the plaintiff did
not keep to himself and lead the life of anything like a recluse. He actively
identified himself with the welfare of his state and was soon found suitable
enough to be elected to the local council. I am satisfied the plaintiff was
employed as a stool clerk of the Keniago stool and served the stool without
remuneration for nine years. I think the reason why the defendants seek to deny
it is because they knew he had nothing for his services and his evidence makes
it probable that</main>