FIJAI STOOL vs. EFFIA STOOL [2002]DLSC2378

Date	2002-07-03
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14/2001
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC2378

MRS. J. BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

AMPIAH J.S.C

KPEGAH J.S.C

ADJABENG J.S.C

ADZOE J.S.C.

MR. AKOTO AMPAU FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. E.A. ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2002]DLSC2378
																																						<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" >FIJAI STOOL<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EFFIA STOOL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 14/2001<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:
3RD JULY 2002.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR.
AKOTO AMPAU FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

MR.
E.A. ODURO FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;
<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">

MRS.
J. BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C. (PRESIDING), AMPIAH, J.S.C., KPEGAH, J.S.C., ADJABENG,
J.S.C., ADZOE, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>MRS.
JUSTICE J. BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the Judgment of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission Appeal Tribunal delivered at Accra on the 21st day of May 1992. The
said Judgment stemmed from an appeal from the decision of the Stool Lands
Boundaries Settlement Commission (Coram E.T.C. Amorin) given on 5th February
1988. A boundary dispute between the Fijai stool and Effia Stool was referred
to the Commissioner of the Stool Lands Boundary Settlement Commission for trial
by Mr. Justice F.T.C. Amorin.<o:p></o:p>At
the hearing both stools were ordered to file survey instructions in addition to
the pleadings. Fijai stool complied but Effia stool failed to file its survey
instructions and offered no explanation. Evidence was taken and concluded and
the trial Commissioner gave judgment wherein he held that:<o:p></o:p>"the evidence led by Fijai stool
is more convincing and acceptable..... I am more impressed by the evidence of
Fijai stool and accept same."<o:p></o:p>The
Commissioner then continued to demarcate the boundary between Fijai and Effia
stools and ordered the drawing up of a survey plan accordingly.<o:p></o:p>The
Effia Stool appealed this decision of the Commissioner to the Appeal Tribunal
which dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied the Appellant herein filed another
appeal to this court. The original ground of appeal was "That the judgment
is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial." Additional
grounds of Appeal were later filed on 21st December 2000 namely:<o:p></o:p>"(i) Having found and held that
the learned trial Commissioner had erred in holding that it was wrong for the
Appellant herein, the EFFIA STOOL, to call different families to prove its
title and boundaries, the Appeal Tribunal erred in nevertheless rejecting the
Appellant's appeal on that ground and thereby failed to realise that the said
error led the learned trial Commissioner to commit the serious blunder of
giving little or no consideration whatsoever to the traditional evidence the
Appellant had adduced before him.<o:p></o:p>(ii) The Appeal Tribunal erred in
failing to realise and to give due weight to the fact that the foregoing flawed
and jaundiced view of the trial Commissioner as to the standard of proof
required of the Appellant clearly beclouded his evaluation of all other
evidence adduced before him by the Appellant, the EFFIA STOOL.<o:p></o:p>(iii) The Appeal Tribunal erred in
failing to recognise and give appropriate weight to the fact that the cursory
vague and summary manner in which the learned trial Commissioner dismissed the
Appellant's entire documentary evidence on the grounds that the "EFFIA
STOOL attempted to make up for its defects by tendering by way of Exhibits
which amounts to nothing more than a pile or heap of waste papers in a
dustbin" constitutes a serious failure to properly evaluate the entire
documentary evidence as to the Appellant's overt acts of ownership in respect
of significant portions of the area in controversy by way of grants to 3rd
parties and successful claims for compensation by the Appellant Stool and or
its grantees in respect portions of its lands compulsorily acquired by
Government for various purposes."<o:p></o:p>The
Appellant argued the additional Grounds of Appeal under the omnibus ground in
the Original Notice of Appeal that "The judgment is against the weight of
Evidence."<o:p></o:p>Under
grounds 1 and 2 of the Additional grounds of Appeal the Appellant argued that
the Appeal Tribunal which dismissed the Appellants appeal, made an error when
that Tribunal itself, after having held that the trial Commissioner erred in
its finding that:<o:p></o:p>"Instead of Affia stool
concentrating on one stool having one parcel of continuous land with various
features thereon, and recent acts, it chose to deal with different families
owning various parcels of land with separate stools to prove their individual
boundaries and thereby in my view erred."<o:p></o:p>also
dismissed the Appellant's appeal. Further that the Appeal Tribunal failed to
give due weight to the standard of proof required of the Appellant, because it
failed to consider all the evidence adduced by the Appellant the Effia stool,
just as was done by the trial Commissioner. But it is patently clear in the
judgment of the appeal tribunal that it considered this ground of appeal, and
dealt with it correctly in my view, when it stated as follows:—<o:p></o:p>"Arguing the ground, counsel
submitted and the point was readily conceded by Mr. Ocran for the respondent
stool that it was rather the trial commissioner who seriously erred in law, in
that Holden. Stool lands can be in possession of individuals or families which
owe allegiance to the stool and such possession by them is possession by the
stool and the proper person to give evidence of the ownership by the stool are
persons in possession".<o:p></o:p>This
shows that the Appeal Tribunal was aware of the error made by the trial
Commissioner on this issue. The said Tribunal also itself evaluated the other
relevant evidence on record and held as follows:<o:p></o:p>