SAIBU vs. MAHAMA AND ANOTHER [1967]DLCA1539

Date	1967-07-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1967]DLCA1539

OLLENNU JA

APALOO JA

LASSEY J.A.

TOTOE FOR THE APPELLANT.

DA ROCHA (DEI ANNANG WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1967]DLCA1539
																																						<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" >SAIBU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>MAHAMA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1967] GLR 506<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:
10 JULY 1967<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">

TOTOE 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">

OLLENNU, APALOO AND LASSEY JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.A.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J. A. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal is from a decision of
the High Court, Tamale. It is about the first land appeal which has come to
this court from the High Court exercising jurisdiction in land suits in the
Northern and Upper Regions under the Courts Act, 1960 (C.A. 9), now repealed by
the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84). The land in dispute is a plot of
building land situate at Walewale within the Wungu division of the Mamprusi
Traditional Area of the Northern Region.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
occupant of the paramount skin of Mamprusi, i.e. the paramount chief, is known
as the Nayiri, the occupant of the Wungu divisional skin, i.e. the divisional
chief of Wungu, is known as the Wunaaba, and the occupant of the sub-skin of
Walewale, i.e. the chief or sub-chief of Walewale, is known as the Duranaa. By
the custom of the Mamprusi Traditional Area, as proved by the evidence before
the court below, the Duranaa, when elected, is installed by his divisional
chief, the Wunaaba, and the divisional chief, the Wunaaba, when elected, is
installed by the paramount chief, the Nayiri. Both the plaintiff, and the
second defendant, are subjects of the Walewale skin, and the first defendant is
the Duranaa.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff claimed title to the land by virtue of a grant alleged to have been
made of it to him by the Wunaaba, who, with the consent of the Duranaa, he
contended, is the proper authority according to customary law, to administer
and make grants of lands attached to the skin of Walewale, i.e. the divisional
skin. The defendants on the contrary contended that the land is attached to the
Duranaa skin, i.e. the sub-skin, and under the administration of the Duranaa,
and that the Duranaa is the competent authority to control the same and to make
grants of portions of it to subjects of the Walewale skin and non-subjects
alike for building and other purposes.<o:p></o:p>In
support of his claim the plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs (3) and (4) of his
statement of claim that:<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">“(3) The
plaintiff some time ago requested of the late Chief Duranaa Nantonma of
Walewale for the piece of land the subject-matter of this suit to erect
buildings thereon. (4) As custom demanded, the chief of Walewale led the
plaintiff to the grand landlord of all Walewale lands one Chief Wungu who
granted the said piece and parcel of land to the plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In reply
to those two paragraphs of the statement of claim the defendants pleaded that:<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">“(4) As
to paragraph (4) of the statement of claim the first defendant says that there
is no custom that the chief of Walewale must approach the chief of Wungu before
a grant of the Walewale-lands should be made as alleged or at all, the grant of
such lands having nothing to do with the chief of Wungu. (6) The defendants say
that the first defendant was approached by both the plaintiff and the second
defendant for pieces of land and he, the first defendant, made grants of two
separate but adjacent or adjoining plots first to the second defendant and then
to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has since erected a building on his plot and
the second defendant is still in the process of erecting a building on his own
plot.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon the
pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, one and only one issue was
joined for determination and that is: who, by customary law, is the proper
person to make grants of Walewale lands, is it the Wunaaba, or the Duranaa? The
court below resolved that issue in favour of the defendants and held that the
Walewale lands are attached immediately to the skin of the Duranaa, and that
the Duranaa is the competent autho</main>