ASANTE v. BOGYABI AND OTHERS
1966
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- SARKODEE-ADOO C.J.
- APALOO
- SIRIBOE JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1966
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff appealed a High Court decision that dismissed his claim for a declaration of title to a house and cocoa farms, which he argued were given to him as gifts by his uncle. The High Court had ruled in favor of the defendants, who claimed the properties belong to the Aduana family. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment and entering judgment for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge failed to properly assess the evidence and established that the properties were indeed given to the plaintiff with adequate customary formalities. The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed, and no damages for trespass were awarded to the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT OF SIRIBOE J.S.C.
This appeal is from the judgment of Acolatse J. (as he then was) delivered in the High Court, Accra, on 1 October 1962, and concerns a piece or parcel of land with house No. G1 thereon situate at Kwabeng in Akim Abuakwa, and 21 cocoa farms, full particulars or descriptions of which as to boundaries are set out in the statement of claim and defence filed.
By that judgment, the learned judge dismissed the claim of the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for a declaration of title to the house and farms in question, together with £G500 damages for trespass, and an injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) respectively and their agents from interfering with his possession and enjoyment as beneficial owner of the said properties. Instead, there was judgment entered for the first, second, third and fourth defendants on their counterclaim for title to the said properties as being the properties of the Aduana family of which the plaintiff and the first four defendants are members, the remaining three defendants were the children of some of the male members of the family.
It is appropriate to mention at this stage that as disclosed by the evidence, the Aduana family own the Mankrado stool, and that the person appointed to occupy the stool automatically becomes the head of the family. Apart from one house (which does not form part of the subject-matter in dispute), the Mankrado stool as admitted by the parties, has no property of its own. Members of the family who are appointed to occupy the stool retain their own self-acquired properties whether they vacate the stool by abdicating, or through the process of destoolment, or death.
The present dispute arose as a result of the death of one Kwaku Tenkorang, a member of the family who was the Mankrado until his death some time in 1951. Tenkorang's only brother of the full blood one Tawoo, predeceased him in the year 1914, so that by the death of [p.235] Tenkorang, their immediate line became extinct, they being the only issue of their deceased mother one Yaa Tenkorangmaa. The latter was a cousin to both the mother of the plaintiff called Kesewa, still alive, and Nyarkoa (deceased), the mother of the first and fourth defendants. The second defendant is the direct maternal nephew of the first and fourth defendants. As to the third defendant, the evidence does not state exactly how he is related to the others.
T