OTU X AND OTHERS vs. OWUODZI AND OTHERS [1987]DLSC795

Date	1987-05-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1987]DLSC795

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS J.S.C

ABBAN JA

OSEI-HWERE JA

WUAKU J.A

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANTS.

E. D. KOM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1987]DLSC795
																																						<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" >&nbsp;OTU X AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OWUODZI AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 196<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
20 MAY 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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE APPELLANTS. <o:p></o:p>

E. D. KOM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

ADADE, FRANCOIS JJ.S.C, ABBAN,
OSEI-HWERE AND WUAKU JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>It would
seem from the pleadings that the second and third
plaintiff-respondent-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs)
belong to and owe allegiance to the Abura Traditional Authority, whilst the
second and third defendant-appellant-respondents belong to and owe allegiance
to the Kwamankese Traditional Authority. Both parties, however, live at
Kwaduagya. The Kwaduagya stool therefore is subordinate stool, but subordinate
to which of the two traditional authorities is the issue that has, eventually,
to be determined in these proceedings.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
plaintiff is the Omanhene of Abura Traditional Area, and the second says he is
the odikro of Kwaduagya, and the third, the ebusuapanyin (head of family) of
the second plaintiff. The defendants are the direct counterparts of the
plaintiffs, i.e. the first defendant is the Omanhene of Kwamankese. The second
says he is the odikro of Kwaduagya, and the third, the ebusuapanyin of the
second defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs say that they are entitled, as owners of Kwaduagya lands, to occupy
the Kwaduagya stool, and that in fact they have been occupying the stool. They
say that after the court case of Mbroh v. Akyinfu, West African Court of
Appeal, 4 December 1947, unreported, the defendants are estopped from
questioning their (the plaintiffs’) ownership. The defendants deny this; in
particular they deny that the plaintiffs are owners of the Kwaduagya lands. The
rival positions are summed up in a few paragraphs of the pleadings, which may
be reproduced with profit. Paragraphs (1) (2), (3), (9) and (13) of the
petition read:<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">“(1) The
petitioners are the Omanhene of Abura State and the odikro and the ebusuapanyin
of Abura Kwaduagya in the Abura Traditional Area and the owners of all the lands
in Abura Kwaduagya. <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">(2) The
lands in dispute were purchased by the petitioners’ ancestors and the
plaintiffs have documents relating [to the] sale and have also defended title
to the said lands even as for as the West African Court of Appeal in civil
appeal suit No.15 of 1947 intituled:<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">Odikro
Kwesi Akyinfu of Kwaduagya v Safohene Kojo Mbroh of Kwaduagya and Eddie Odum of
Kwaduagya v Kojo Mbroh of Kwaduagya (3) That the first petitioner is the
Omanhene of all the lands and people of Abura State and the second plaintiff
has been the odikro of Abura Kwaduagya for the put four years without
interference whilst the plaintiffs’ ancestors have been in possession of the
lands herein for well over 200 years ... (9) Indeed, information reaching the
plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant and the second defendants with the
connivance of others have installed the third defendant as chief of Kwaduagya
on 16 August 1980 and in violation of the hallowed tradition and custom of the
people of Kwaduagya . . . (13) That the defendants have no locus standi to
install an odikro or community head at Abura Kwaduagya, any such right being
fully vested in the petitioners herein as chief and owners of the land herein.”<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">Against
these we have paragraphs (3), (7) and (10) of the reply 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)
Kwaduagya therefore, forms part of the lands under the control of the Omanhene
of Kwamankese<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">Traditional
Area and not under the control of the Omanhene of Abura Traditional Area ...
(7) The respondents deny paragraph (4) of the petition and state that Kwaduagya
has always belonged to Kwamankese Traditional Area and that at no time has
consent or permission been sought for occupation at Kwaduagya for people of
Kwamankese origin or for that matter any stranger. The petitioners were put to
strict proof of the averment contained in paragraph (4) of the petition...<o:p></o:p>