JUDGM THE 29THJULY, 1936.
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- LORD BLANESBURGH
- LORD MAUGHAM
- LORD ROCHE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Privy Council heard an appeal by C. M. Appeatu and W. E. Appeatu arising from a dispute over the Kyeramase-Kohye lands in the Gold Coast Colony. Ohene Kojo Sintim, chief of Mansu, sued to set aside an alleged 1920 sale arranged by Akroso’s Odikro, Kobina Ofori, for £3,000. The sale was never completed by conveyance, and no payment was made to the paramount Mansu stool. The defendants relied on a ‘Guaha’ ceremony and subsequent episodes (the “Oaths case” and a “visit to Accra”) to imply consent by Mansu, but the Native Tribunal rejected this, and the West African Court of Appeal restored its decision. The Privy Council held that consent from Mansu was essential and had not been proven, criticized the Acting Commissioner’s placement of the burden on the respondent, and noted a forged receipt tendered by the defendants. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was varied to declare the sale not binding on Mansu, rather than ordering reversion of the land.
JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE 29THJULY, 1936.
This is an appeal by' the defendants against. a judgment of
-the 'Vest. African Court of Appeal, dated the 24t.h November, 1934, restoring a judgment, dated 9th August, 1033, of the Superior Native Tribunal of Akim Kotoku-Oda in the Central Province of the Gold Coast Colony, in favour of the respondent, and reversing the judgment of the Provincial Commissioner's Court (Central Province) of the Supreme Court. of the Gold Coast Colony. The Provincial Commissioner had reverse the judgment of the Native Tribunal, and had given judgment in favour of the appellants in this appeal.
The action was commenced on the 3rd October, 1932, by the respondent, the Ohene Kojo 8intim for himself and on behalf of his subjects against C. M. Appeatu and W. E. Appeatu (appellants) and one Yaw Mensah (since deceased). The claim was made by the plaintiff as Ohene (or chief) of Mansu for himself and on behalf of his subjects and the Mansu Stool, and by it he sought an order setting aside the alleged sale in 1920 of a track of land (ca1led the " Kyeramase-Kohye lands ") to the defendants; and an injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, and workmen from interfering with the possession and occupation of the land by the plaintiff, his subjects, tenants, and workmen. The trial of the action occupied some eight clays. The Native Tribunal consisted of some 26 native chiefs and others, of whom seven were "linguists." On the 9th August, 1933, the Tribunal delivered its findings which were in favour of the plaintiff and on the following day there was a formal order in these terms: --" the Tribunal orders that the land which is the subject matter of this case reverts to the plaintiff's Stool and that the defendants and all people occupying' the land on their behalf remove therefrom."
The appellants who include Kate Gyakyiwah whose name was substituted for that of Yaw Mensah deceased) raised only one question on the appeal to His Majesty in Council, namely, the question whether the consent of the respondent and his Stool, that is, the Stool of :Mansu, to the sale of the lands in question had not (contrary to the finding of the native Tribunal) been duly given. The respondent was in fact the Onene of Mansu and the occupant of the Stool of Mansu at the time of the alleged sale, though he was destooled about a fortnight later, and was not reinstated on the Stool till the autumn of 1932. There was a subordinat