AKUA MANSAH v. KWAME KODUA

Judgment :

This case concerns an interest - to be precise, the right to farm in a piece of land or forest called BISIBISISO which contains various portions. The summons alleges it contains farm fallow called Mfudan, fallow land called Adweguo and also a portion of forest.

The plaintiff in her summons claims "ownership" of this portion: it is clear, however, that possession or right to possess is the very most that is intended. Both sides claim an interest subject to the overriding interests of the stools they serve: the fact therefore that the summons is bad does not however, I feel, entitle me to dismiss the suit. It was quite clear to the parties themselves and to the members of both Courts what interest was in dispute. The word "ownership" appeared owing to slovenly use of the English language, the summons having been prepared by a public letter writer, men normally of little education.

The second problem that I had to decide was where and what is the land in dispute. No plan was prepared, no map is quoted. Names for areas in my experience, usually however have a reasonably clear meaning; they are used to define blocks of territory, are common knowledge and are accepted by the villages. What may not be definite is the boundary of any such block. This may arise from a forest encroaching on grassland, grassland on forest, paths or streams changing their course or perhaps the commonest reason of all a farm (often cocoa) being made on both sides of and across the boundary and the original boundary being thus lost sight of.

But the main block is known, its boundaries are normally ascertainable and where they are not, only a fraction of the area becomes debateable. In not dismissing the case for uncertainty on this point it is only because I feel bound by "Certum est quod certum reddi potest."

The appellant has submitted grounds of appeal, supplementary grounds and has argued in Court. Her contentions are:

(a) that her witness Ama Dapa did not go to inspect the ground with the viewers. It is true that she did not go at the first viewing but Court "A" was so desirous of ascertaining the facts of the case that its members made a second journey to the land and on that occasion Ama Dapa not only accompanied the Court but actually gave evidence. The argument appears to me to be frivolous.

(b) that the viewers accepted bribes: the appellant has taken no steps to substantiate this libellous statement and I am not prepared to pay any further heed to it. Had sh