ABENA BOTWE v. E. H. ODURO

Judgment:

In this case the Native Tribunal of first instance in upholding the Plaintiff Respondent's claim for a declaration of title to the land in dispute, attached great importance to the evidence of Afua Mane, the aunt of Atta Ofei. The Defendant-Appellant claimed through Atta Ofei, contending that the land had been granted by Atta Ofei to the defendant's brother Godfried Asare who had in turn granted it to the defendant.

In his evidence Atta Ofei admitted that he had made a farm on the land in dispute and granted to Afua Mane. The importance of the evidence of Afua Mane, who was the Respondent's witness, is that when the Plaintiff-Respondent claimed the farm from her about seven years ago, Atta Ofei wanted to litigate with the Plaintiff but Afua Mane advised him to stop and return the farm to the Plaintiff who was the owner of it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's allegation that Atta Ofei had made a gift of the land to Godfried Asare, through whom he claimed, was unreliable and unsupported. In giving Judgment for the Plaintiff the Tribunal held that the land belonged originally to the Dwumuana family of which Atipa was formerly the head; his successor Kwame Kyere, the Plaintiff's uncle granted the portion in dispute to her and the Plaintiff had therefore satisfactorily established her title.

This Judgment was confirmed by the Native Appeal Court of Akyem Abuakwa on the 30th July, 1945. The three material grounds of appeal which were dealt with by the Native Appeal Court, are the identical grounds that have been argued by the Appellant before this Court.

The appellate Native Court rightly held:

(a) That it is not contrary to native custom for the respondent as a member of the Dwumuana family to sue in protection of her right to a portion of the family land which she had cultivated and therefore stamped as her own property, and

(b) that the appellant had failed to disprove the Respondent's title.

There are therefore concurrent findings of fact of two Native Tribunals. No point of law has been submitted why this Court should review the findings of fact and no special circumstances have been urged why this should be done.

Following therefore, the accepted practice of the Court, this appeal is d'smissed with costs for the Respondent assessed at £92 s. 6" " d. of which £55/ - to Counsel on brief.