Adonkwanta Stool v. Motodua Stool & 1 ORS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M.OWUSU, (J.A.) - Presiding
- DORDZIE, (J.A.)
- GYAN, (J.A.)
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a dispute over the traditional lands known as Ahenkro lands. The 1st claimant, Adonkwanta Stool, accused the 2nd claimant, Motodua Stool, of encroaching on its land. The 3rd claimant, Benkumhene of Krachi representing the Keanae Stool, also claimed a portion of the land. The initial trial was held in High Court, Ho in 1986, transferred to the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commission, and later brought back to the High Court under the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement (Repeal) Act 2000 (ACT 587). The High Court ruled in favor of the 1st claimant, establishing the boundaries. The 2nd claimant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as the judgment was supported by the evidence on record. The court reiterated principles for testing traditional history and handling conflicting traditional histories.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.: 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; “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”. This case was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in the case of AGO SAI & Others v. KPOBI TETTEH TSURU 111 [2010] SCGLR 762, 764 where their Lordships held in holding [1] as follows; “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”. 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.
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.
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 bound