Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 18, 1946
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
Judgment:
This appeal is from a judgment of the Asantehene's Court "A" dated 29th January, 1946.
The suit discloses a claim by a representative of Dormaa claiming a declaration of title to the effect that the River Tano is the boundary between himself and the Defendant, a representative of the Stool of Susuanso. After the case had been in progress for some considerable time, the Chief of Nkwanta asked to be made a party to the case. He was eventually joined as Co-defendant though from subsequent evidence it appears to have been a moot point as to whether he should have been joined as Co-Plaintiff or Co-Defendant.
Although the summons is dated August, 1935, judgment was not given until January, 1946. The Asantehene's Court gave judgment for the Defendant against the Plaintiff and at the same time for the Co-defendant against the Defendant. From this judgment the Plaintiff, Dormaa, appealed against Susuanso and secondly Susuanso appealed against Nkwanta. Two separate appeals have therefore come before me in the same case.
Thus, for the area in dispute, there are three claimants, Dormaa, Susuanso and Nkwanta. I began hearing Dormaa's appeal against Susuanso and after a short while ascertained, by admissions, that Dormaa and Nkwanta had no quarrel inter se and were both prepared to agree and did agree that the land in dispute was held in common, that there was no fixed boundary between themselves but that the River Tano was used as a convenient point up to which each party performed certain acts such as, for example, clearing their portion of the road in the olden days when the road was maintained by communal labour. The question that then arose was, was Dormaa abandoning her claim as disclosed in her application, for a Writ of Summons? To this Dormaa replied that she had no boundaries with Nkwanta nor any quarrel, but was not prepared to allow Susuanso to cross the Tano if she claimed to do so in her own right, and for that reason was not prepared to agree to a judgment by consent against Susuanso. The next question I had to consider was, did Susuanso own any land at all? If she was not a land owner then the action between Dormaa and Susuanso was easily settled. If Susuanso, however was a Land Owner, then I would need to consider fully Dormaa's appeal against Susuanso.
I therefore decided to hear the Susuanso appeal, which really was in effect as to whether Susuanso owned land or held land of Nkwanta. I gave three days to the hearing of this appeal and h
AI Generated Summary
This appellate judgment by Russell, Acting Assistant Chief Commissioner, arises from the Asantehene’s Court “A” decision on land disputes among Dormaa, Susuanso, and Nkwanta concerning territory near the River Tano. Dormaa sought a declaration that the river marked a boundary with Susuanso; Nkwanta was later joined. The lower court found for Susuanso against Dormaa and for Nkwanta against Susuanso. On appeal, Russell first addressed whether Susuanso owned land or merely held as caretaker under Nkwanta, analyzing thirteen grounds including res judicata, estoppel, weight of evidence, falsehood, and bias. He concluded long possession under service did not confer title, exhibits did not estop Nkwanta, and the prior debt litigation did not resolve ownership. Russell affirmed the judgment in favor of Nkwanta against Susuanso, allowed Dormaa’s appeal against Susuanso, and recorded a consent judgment that Dormaa and Nkwanta jointly hold the land with no fixed boundary, using the River Tano as a convenient reference for communal service, with each bearing their own costs inter se.