KAMANDA BONGAY PARAMOUNT
1932
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
SIERRA LEONE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Native Laws and Customs
1932
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
SIERRA LEONE
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around a land possession dispute between Kamanda Bongay, the Paramount Chief of Big Bo Chiefdom, and F.S. Macauley, who had been occupying the land since 1892. The primary issues involve whether Macauley's actions, including sub-letting land and obstructing a road project, led to forfeiture of his rights under native law. Initially, the Circuit Court ruled in favor of Bongay, which led to an appeal and a subsequent retrial. The retrial reinforced the original decision, and Macauley appealed again. The final judgment by the Court of Appeal affirmed that Macauley’s misconduct justified the forfeiture of his land rights. The decision highlights the importance of native customs in determining land rights and the jurisdiction of the courts in enforcing these customs.
The following judgments were delivered:-
KINGDON, C.]. NIGERIA.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the Sierra Leone Protectorate dated the 5th March, 1931, making an order in plaintiff's favour for possession of two areas of land situate near Bo in the Big Bo Chiefdom in the Central Province of the Protectorate.
The writ of summons is dated the 9th February, 1927, and at that time the plaintiffs were" Kamanda Bongay, Paramount Chief of the Big Bo Chiefdom, for himself and on behalf of the Tribal Authority and Gbogba and Lassana, land owners." At the trial which ensued judgment was given in plaintiffs' favour, but the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial which began on the 22nd January, 1931. It is from the judgment in that re-trial that the defendant now appeals. At the outset of the re-trialthe plaintiffs' Counsel informed the Court that the plaintiff Lassana was dead and asked that both second and third plaintiffs be struck out. There was no objection from defendant's Counsel and the Court ordered accordingly. In the present action therefore Kamanda Bongay sues alone as " Paramount Chief of the Big Bo Chiefdom, for himself and on behalf of the Tribal Authority."
I t is to be noted that the trial was a summary one and consequently there were no pleadings, but it is to be regretted that the points in issue between the parties were not more clearly ascertained, defined and recorded at the outset of the trial, for it seems that the points upon which the learned Chief Justice based his decision in the Court below only emerged as the real points in issue at a fairly advanced stage of the hearing.
The b~sis of the decision is that-
"The defendant has, by flouting the authority of the Paramount Chief, both in the matter of his tenants and by hi~ claim, expressed and implied, to the absolute ownership of the land, culminating with his interference with the road, been guilty of conduct which renders all his rights in the land liable to forfeiture."
But in the particulars of claim there is not a word to suggest that the claim to recover pos3ession was founded upon allegations of misconduct by the defendant involving forfeiture of his rights. They read as follows:-
"The plaintiff demands of you possession of two areas of land situate near Bo in the Big Bo Chiefdom, Central
Kamanda Bongay v. F. S. Macauley.
Province, Sierra Leone Protectorate, description of which are hereunto annexed.
" The plaintiffs are entitled to the said lands as