BIRIMPONG v. BAWUAH

JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH JA.

This action is in respect of land which the parties described as Besease lands in the Atwima District of Ashanti. The plaintiff claimed as the allodial owner of all these Besease lands. After a series of amendments, the plaintiff eventually claimed for: "a declaration that plaintiff is sub-allodial owner of all Besease lands forming boundaries with ... of which land the plaintiff is a caretaker for the Golden Stool of Ashanti."

The defendant, who described his land similarly, denied the plaintiff's claim and counterclaimed for a declaration of title to all the lands as described in paragraph 14 of his amended statement of defence filed on 21 May 1988. Even though the defendant had also counterclaimed for one-half share of proceeds and profits from the land, the final amended statement of defence did not pursue this claim. It was therefore not necessary to give judgment on that aspect of the claim.

At the end of the trial, the learned trial judge gave judgment for the defendant, declaring title in him of all the Besease lands except that portion described as Asakraka and Ntabaanu lands. Of these two portions of the land, the judge declared title in the plaintiff. The plaintiff has appealed against the whole of the judgment while the defendant has appealed against that part of the judgment which vested title in the Asakraka and Ntabaanu lands in the plaintiff.

For the determination of the case, the plaintiff set down as many as 22 issues on the summons for direction filed on 18 March 1976. An additional issue was filed on 15 July 1976. Despite the numerous [p.23] amendments that were made subsequently in the pleadings, the parties did not think it necessary to file any further issues. Unfortunately, these issues could not be settled before hearing started on 3 March 1987. On 10 October 1988, before judgment, the learned trial judge drew counsel's attention to this irregularity. The position was regularised by counsel who agreed to adopt the issue as filed.

I must say that some of the issues raised in the action were obviously chieftaincy matters. The learned trial judge, in my view, rightly steered clear off the determination of those chieftaincy issues. For his purpose, it was sufficient for him to declare that both the plaintiff and the defendant were occupants of a stool and that the plaintiff's stool was higher in status than the defendant's. As to the relationship between the stools, he did not venture to state. He concerne