OMANHENE OF SEFWI-WIAWSO vs. DONKOR [1965]DLHC1841

Date	1965-06-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1841

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

ESSIEM FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. OFORI-BOATENG FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1965]DLHC1841
																																						<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" >OMANHENE OF SEFWI-WIAWSO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DONKOR <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 462<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">

DATE:
17 JUNE 1965.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

ESSIEM FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal from the judgment of the Sefwi-Wiawso Local Court presided over by K.
Adu Poku, Esquire, local court magistrate delivered on 28 September 1964. By
his writ, the plaintiff, the Omanhene of the Sefwi-Wiawso Traditional Area,
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
claims judicial relief of the honourable court why the defendant has failed to
account for one-third share of a cocoa farm left by the late Mr Laaw which farm
is now in charge of the defendant and situate and lying at a place commonly
known as Kwakwa within Supeano locality and within the Sefwi-Wiawso Traditional
Area by virtue of customary law and usage.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As
appearing from the title of the case the Omanhene sued through one J. A.
Koufie, the secretary of the traditional council.<o:p></o:p>The brief
facts of the case are that the father of the defendant obtained a parcel of
land from the Sefwi-Wiawso paramount stool for the purpose of farming some
twenty years previous to the institution of this action. The said grantee, the
father of the defendant, died some time ago at an unspecified date in 1961. The
deceased had before his death cultivated and developed the land into a cocoa
farm. For the use of the land the deceased paid to the grantor stool an annual
customary fee of £G4 13s.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
death of his father, the defendant introduced himself as successor to his late
father and paid the stool a fee of £G15 by way of homage. The stool however
called upon the defendant to enter into a new agreement with the stool whereby
the defendant would have to pay an annual tribute of £G18 instead of the amount
of £G4 13s. which his late father used to pay. This action was instituted for
the purpose of enforcing the purported new agreement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the appeal Mr. Essiem, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
that the judgment appealed from was erroneous because even though the court
purported to base its judgment on the Administration of Lands Act, 1962,1 in
applying that Act it failed to take into consideration the Rents
(Stabilization) Act, 1962,2 and also the Rents (Stabilization) (Amendment) Act,
1963,3 Which amended Act 109 and excluded certain lands from the operation of
the said Act. The main contention was that at the time the land was “granted”
to the defendant it was “farmed land.” The above submission of learned counsel
was based on the premise that on the death of the original grantee of the land
(the father of the defendant), in the absence of any member of the original
grantee the land would and in fact reverted to the stool grantor.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I did not
call upon Mr. Ofori-Boateng, learned counsel for the respondent. In answer to a
question in cross-examination the representative of the traditional council
(one Mr. Joseph Albert Koufie, the secretary attached to the traditional
council) said:<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">“The
traditional council agreed to accept £G4 13s. as sheep from your late father
because the council considered that he had no relatives to succeed him after
his death and that the property as such could have gone to the stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>