ROBERTSON vs. NII AKRAMAH II AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED) [1973]DLCA2275

Date	1973-02-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2275

APALOO JA

ANIN J.A

FRANCOIS J.

AKUOKO (FRIMPONG-BOADU WITH HIM) FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. DE GRAFT-JOHNSON (U.V. CAMPBELL AND AKOTIA WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2275
																																						<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" ><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">ROBERTSON<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">vs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">NII AKRAMAH II
AND OTHERS (CONSOLIDATED)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>[1973] 1 GLR 445<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:right;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">DATE:&nbsp;22 FEBRUARY 1973.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>AKUOKO (FRIMPONG-BOADU WITH HIM) FOR
THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DR.
DE GRAFT-JOHNSON (U.V. CAMPBELL AND AKOTIA WITH HIM) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

APALOO,
ANIN JJ.A. AND FRANCOIS J.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Apaloo J.A. delivered the judgment
of the court. About four miles north-east of the centre of Accra, is a fairly
large tract of land said to be of poor agricultural value. It is situate on an
eminence. With the rapid growth in the population of Accra and the consequent
scramble for suburban building areas, it has become valuable building land. It
is known as the Mukose lands. This land was the subject-matter of the
litigation which culminated in this appeal. Rival claims to it were made by the
Nikoi Olai family on one side and the Asere stool and its grantees on the
other. This is not the first time that a dispute about its ownership has come
before the courts, and we suspect, unhappily, that this is not likely to be the
last.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Nikoi Olai family belongs to
the Asere Djorshie division of Accra. It has a stool named the Nikoi Olai
stool. It was claimed that that stool was properly the Paramount Stool of
Asere. With that aspect of the matter, we are not concerned. What we feel bound
to acknowledge, is that Nii Akramah II is the Paramount Chief of the Asere
division. He occupies a stool other than the plaintiff’s stool. It is called
the Akotia Oworsika stool. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s stool is sub-servient,
at any rate, as at present, to that stool. It follows from this, that the
plaintiff’s family qua family, are subjects of the Asere Paramount stool.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">That being the constitutional
position as we see it, the present litigation can be regarded as a domestic
difference between the Asere mantse and some of his subjects—an entirely Asere
matter. There is evidence that in the past, parts of the Mukose lands have been
the subject of litigation between the Asere stool and some other stools or
their subjects. The judgments given in those other cases or the position taken
by either the Asere stool or the plaintiff’s family have been said to be of
some legal relevance in determining the rights of the parties in this case. To
that aspect of the matter we will return.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">As far as we are able to judge, the
first time that there was any straight contest between the Asere stool and the
plaintiff’s family about the ownership of the Mukose lands, was in 1948, in In
re Public Lands Ordinance; Wireless Station Acquisition (1948) D.C. (Land)
‘48-’51, 34. It was not the ordinary adversary suit with which one is familiar
in these courts. The government had acq</main>