AMAKYE BARE STOOL PER ODIKRO KWASI AGYEI v. ATRONIE DIKRO KOFI DARKO

Judgment:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Asantehene's Court "A2" which reserved the judgment of the Asantehene's Divisional Court "B1" given in favour of the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim was commenced by the swearing of the Great Oath claiming ownership of the whole of the Atronie land and by the defendant also swearing by the same oath that the land belonged to him.

The issue before the trial Native Court was whether the land belonged to the plaintiff or to the defendant. The claim was clearly one for a declaration of title or ownership to the land in dispute. After hearing evidence from both sides the Native Court of first instance gave judgment for the defendant on the claim thereby holding that the Atronie lands belonged to the defendant.

It is unnecessary to recite the judgment of the trial Native Court. It is sufficient to state that the Native Court having considered the evidence of tradition as to how each party acquired the land in dispute and also other evidence of occupation, did not accept the defendant's traditional evidence. It held however that "whether the land was for plaintiff's ancestors, once the defendant's ancestors in view of their ranks as Asantehene's hunters were permitted to live on the land freely ... without paying any rent or tribute, it shows clearly that ownership was vested in them." The Native Court also appears to have based its decision on certain Exhibits tendered by both parties and concluded as follows:-

"The Court therefore in view of the facts above stated finds that the

Plaintiff was wrong in swearing the Great Oath claiming the whole land

of Atronie when he well knew of the standing Executive Decision and agreement that he owns the land in common with the defendant ".

I shall later on deal with those Exhibits which the Native Court regarded as Executive Decision and agreement between the parties. I shall here deal with the evidence of Tradition given by the parties. This class of evidence has been regarded by the Courts in this country as important and material evidence in establishing a claim of title to land, although, by itself it is not sufficient to establish such title. It however becomes very important when it involves the main issue between the parties as it does in this case, namely how did the ' ancestors of the Plaintiff or defendant acquire the land in dispute? Without

going into the details of the evidence of tradition given by each party, I would briefly say that the Plaintif