ADONKWANTA STOOL vs. MOTODUA STOOL KEANAE STOOL [2015]DLCA8274

Date	2015-11-12
Suit No.	CIVIL SUIT:NO: H1/71/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8274

M.OWUSU (J.A.) – PRESIDING

DORDZIE (J.A.)

GYAN (J.A.)

MR. J. H. SENOO FOR 2ND CLAIMANT/APPELLANT

EDORA B. DUODO WITH BASITA A. TAWIAH FOR THE 3RD CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA8274
																																						<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" >ADONKWANTA STOOL<o:p></o:p>(1ST CLAIMANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>MOTODUA STOOL<o:p></o:p>(2ND
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>KEANAE STOOL<o:p></o:p>(3R
CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL SUIT:NO:&nbsp; H1/71/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 12TH NOV, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. J. H. SENOO FOR 2ND CLAIMANT/APPELLANT<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">

EDORA B. DUODO WITH
BASITA A. TAWIAH FOR THE 3RD CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">CORAM:<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">

M.OWUSU (J.A.) –
PRESIDING, DORDZIE (J.A.), GYAN (J.A.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT: The
test for traditional history was laid down by the Privy Council in the case of ADJEIBI-KOJO v. BONSIE 3 [WALR] 257 when the Court held as follows;<o:p></o:p>“The most satisfactory method of testing traditional
history is by examining it in the light of such more recent facts as can be
established by evidence in order to establish which of the conflicting
statements of tradition is more probably correct. Where there is a conflict of
traditional history one side or the other must be mistaken, yet both may be
honest in their beliefs, for honest mistakes may occur in the course of
transmission of the traditions down the generations. In such circumstances, and
particularly where Native Courts below have differed, an Appeal Court must
review the evidence and draw their own inferences from the established facts:
the demeanor of witnesses before the trial court is little guide to the truth”.&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>This
case was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in the case of AGO SAI &amp; Others v. KPOBI TETTEH TSURU
111 [2010] SCGLR 762, 764 where their Lordships held in holding [1] as
follows;<o:p></o:p>“It
was well-settled that where in a land suit, the evidence as to the title to the
disputed land was traditional and conflicting [as in the instant case], the
surest guide was to test such evidence in the light of recent acts to see which
was preferable”.<o:p></o:p>The
appeal in this case involves the traditional history of the parties in this
suit. Initially, the Adonkwanta Stool, the 1st claimant sued Motodua
Stool at the trial High Court, Ho sometime in 1986. After pleadings in the case
had closed, the trial High judge by an order of the Court, transferred the
matter to the then Stool Lands Boundaries Commission, Accra, for adjudication
as the issues in his view related to the boundaries of the two stools. The
parties therefore appeared before the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission. Before the Commission, Benkumhene of Krachi applied and was joined
to the suit as 3rd claimant.&nbsp;
The parties in this suit therefore are; Adonkwanta Stool as 1st
claimant, Motodua Stool as 2nd claimant and the Benkumhene of Krachi
who occupied the Keanae Stool as the 3rd claimant.<o:p></o:p>Before
dealing with the arguments advanced in support of this appeal, I would give a
brief background of the case. The 1st claimant by its amended
statement of claim averred that, it is the owner in possession of all that land
known as Ahenkro lands. It averred further that, the land is bounded on one
side by the Oti river, on the other side by the Volta River, on another side by
Krachi Stool land [known as Agyamahene’s land] and on another side by Agyamasu.
The 1st claimant continued that, the land described supra is its
ancestral land attached to the Adonkwanta Stool from time immemorial. <o:p></o:p>It
averred further that, many years ago, the 2nd claimant’s people
approached it [1st claimants] ancestors for a place to settle
whereby it granted 2nd claimants part of Ahenkro lands. It is the
case of the 1st claimants that for over a century, there was no
problem between the two until the 2nd claimants’ population began to
expand and they began to trespass onto areas beyond where they were granted.
This led to their ancestors setting limits to the area the 2nd
claimants could live and the stream called Apapasu was s</main>