AKUA ANIMAH v. KWABENA BERKUI
1950
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JACKSON, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
- Civil Procedure
1950
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Jackson, J., hearing an appeal from the Asantehenes Court, reviewed a customary land dispute on stool land near Twumasen between a female appellant and the respondent. The Offinso Native Court had granted ejectment after sending Kojo Antwi and Kwabina Dwumoh to inspect, finding the respondent violated an accepted farming rule that no one farms directly in front of anothers known direction of cultivation. The Asantehenes Court set that judgment aside by treating three elders earlier comments as an arbitration award. Jackson, J. rejected this approach, citing the Native Courts (Ashanti) Ordinance, Sections 30 and 32, and personally inspected the land. He confirmed a footpath boundary and a prevalent northsouth pattern; the respondent had crossed the path, farming eastward and impeding the appellants southward extension. The court restored the Offinso judgment and awarded costs to the appellant.
Judgment:
This is an appeal from a decision given by the Asantehene's Court on the 8th day of March, 1950 which set aside a judgment by the Offinsu Native Court on the 21st May, 1949.
The issue before the Native Court was for the ejectment of the defendant (now the respondent) from a certain area of land on the grounds that he had farmed there in disregard of the accepted farming practice that a person shall not farm immediately in front of another person who is cultivating land in a particular direction. The land is stool land and both parties, admittedly, have rights to clear the forest on that land provided they do not interfere with others farming there who have vested interests. The rule is well known and is accepted by all farmers in these areas, but in its application a great deal of give and take and ordinary common sense must be applied in the absence of any definite area being allocated to any particular member of the Stool. If a person is known to be cultivating land and extending his cultivation in any particular direction, then it is an offence against this rule, in the absence of any agreement or formal allotment by the stool owner, for any other farmer to farm so as to impede another's further cultivation in the direction he was formerly taking. It is a crude rule, and as I have said it requires a good deal of common sense, and give and take, in its application, and in the absence of any agreement or formal allotment the parties will have to abide by the decisions of the elders whose duties may be those for the apportionment of stool land amongst its members, subject of course to any recourse that they may be had to the Courts.
The Native Court of Offinso after hearing the evidence, sent two persons namely Kojo Antwi and Kwabina Dwumoh to view the land, and, after their inspection they were of opinion that the defendant's conduct had offended this rule. Now, in the Offinso Native Court three of the elders of the stool gave evidence that some time ago the plaintiff (now the appellant) had made a similar complaint in respect of the defendant's conduct and that they had found her "guilty". By that I understand they meant that the plaintiff had no just cause for her complaint in respect of the defendant's conduct. There was no evidence that these elders went to see the farm and in my judgment, in the absence of any evidence, that they were the persons responsible for the allocation of stool land, their decision could have no binding effect up