NASALI vs. ADDY [1987]DLSC787

Date	1987-04-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLSC787

SOWAH C.J.

ADADE J.S.C.

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU JA

AMUA-SEKYI J.A.

W. A. N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT.

PETER ALA ADJETEY (WITH HIM LARTEY YOUNG) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1987]DLSC787
																																						<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" >NASALI<o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ADDY <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 143<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
7 APRIL 1987<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">

W. A. N. ADUMUA-BOSSMAN FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

PETER ALA ADJETEY (WITH HIM LARTEY YOUNG) FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

SOWAH C.J., ADADE J.S.C., OSEI-HWERE,
WUAKU AND AMUA-SEKYI JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH C.J.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant, Ibrahim Nasali, took a loan of ¢800 from one Salifu Maikankan. The
security he offered was a plot of land he had obtained from the Abossey Okai
family and on which he had commenced the erection of a building. When he
defaulted in the payment of the amount due, Maikankan discovered for the first
time that the document he had been given was a worthless piece of paper since
title lay, not in the Abossey Okai family, but in the Akumajay stool. When he approached
the said stool, they offered to sell the land to him. He bought it and in turn
sold it to the respondent, Elizabeth Addy.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
action brought by the respondent in the High Court against the appellant and
others it was at first sought to establish that the land belonged to Nasali’s
grantors but, in the face of the several judgments to the contrary, this line
of defence was abandoned at the trial and an attempt made to claim title
through the Akumajay stool. That evidence was given by Emmanuel Tagoe, the
first witness for the defendants who said in part:<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">“I am a
member of the Adanne family of the Akumajay quarter of Accra. My family is the
caretaker of the Akumajay stool lands. I am the stool father of the Akumajay
stool. The royal family of Akumajay is called the Calewanche family. I know the
late Naa Korkoi Abossey Okai. She died in 1975. She was my real mother. The
Abossey Okai lands belong to the Akumajay stool. The Calewanche family is the
caretaker of the Abossey Okai lands for the Akumajay stool. I own a land
myself. The land I own was given to me by the Akumajay stool. I acquired this
land in 1928. The land was given to me customarily. I gave two bottles of drink
and three cedis to the stool. The land granted me measures 664 feet by 200 feet.
When the land was given to me I fenced three sides. The remaining side was near
a rail line so I did not fence it. My land is situate at a place now commonly
known as Abossey Okai. The fourth side which was formerly a rail line is now
constructed into a road from Accra to Winneba. I have disposed of this my land
to individuals including the co-defendant who is occupying part of it. I am now
staying in my mother’s house which abuts the land granted me by the Akumajay
stool. I sold part of my land to the co-defendant in 1964. I executed a
conveyance in favour of the co-defendant when I sold part of my land to him.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
conveyance was tendered in evidence as exhibit 1. It was not executed by the
witness, but rather by his mother, Naa Korkoi Abossey, and other as
representing the Abossey Okai family. Furthermore, there is no recital of any
prior grant by the Akumajay stool to the witness or anyone else.<o:p></o:p>In the
High Court, Edward Wiredu J. (as he then was) ordered that judgment be entered
for the plaintiff, Elizabeth Addy. An appeal to the Court of Appeal (coram:
Francois J.A. (as he then was), Edusei J.A. and Abban J. (as he then was)) was
dismissed after the court had gone through the various cases which had adjudged
the Akumajay stool to be the lawful owners of Opete Kpakpo land of which the
land in dispute forms part. It is not necessary to go through all these cases
which stand as a brickwall against any claim by the Abossey Okai family of a
right to alienate any put of these lands without the knowledge or consent of
the Akumajay stool. It is sufficient to say that the case now being part up for
the family that they are not caretakers for the Akumajay stool but the
usufructuary owners of the land was rejected by the Privy Council in Okai II v.
Ayikai, II (1950) 12 W.A.C.A. 37 at 39, P.C. where the board 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
argument that the judgment was inequitable was based on the evidence that
members of the family had been in occupation of the land for a very long time
without accounting to the Stool and had exercised acts of ownership, but it
ignores the important fact that they were in occupation as caretakers for the
Stool.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
should conclude the matter. The fact that Nasali happened to be an alien was
therefore irrelevant because, on the decided cases, even if he had been a
Ghanaian, the grant made to him by the Abossey Okai family without the consent
of the Akumajay </main>