Apori Stool and another v Worakesi Stool

AIKINS JSC. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Stool Lands Boundaries Appeal Tribunal affirming the decision of the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner in two consolidated actions by two different plaintiffs, Nana Akwetey and others of Apori Akim and Ohene Kwasi and others of Aduasa Akim against the same defendant, Nana Fretwie Andam, chief of Worakese by the Stool Lands Boundaries Settlement Commissioner. By the order of the Commissioner the stool of Apori was joined in the first case No 2/80 entitled: Nana Akwetey and others versus Nana Fretwie Andam of Worakese, and the stool of Aduasa was joined in the second case No 2/80 entitled: Ohene Kwasi and others versus Nana Fretwie Andam of Worakese. The cases were referred to the Commissioner when the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, on the advice of the Survey Department attached to the Commission, Mr Okai Lartey, was appointed to survey and draw up a plan of the boundary in dispute with the relevant features thereon. The boundaries relative to the claims by the parties were delineated and edged in different colours.

After considering in very great detail the claim put up by each of the three claimants coupled with the evidence led by their witnesses in support of their respective claims the commissioner found the boundary of Apori stool proved and rejected that of Worakese. As between Aduasa and Worakese stools, the Commissioner found the boundary of Aduasa stool proved and rejected that of Worakese as unproved.

Only the Aduasa stool appealed to this court. Arguments centred on the four additional grounds filed by the appellant and the first of the original grounds - the weight of evidence. The four additional grounds are:

“(i) The learned appeal tribunal erred in law when it granted the Worakese application to lead fresh evidence in the terms sought.

(ii) The learned appeal tribunal erred in law by proceeding to order a super-imposition of the plan without it being formally tendered by the Worakese stool to give the Apori and Aduasa stools the opportunity to cross-examine to show that it should not be admitted.

(iii) The learned appeal tribunal erred in law and in fact by basing its judgment in a substantial respect on an alleged certificate of validity of the Awuraboo Concession when there was no proof of the existence of such a certificate.

(iv) The learned appeal tribunal erred in law by raising suo motu, the de