KANO v. ATAKPLA
November 20, 1959
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- OLLENNU J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
November 20, 1959
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
(His lordship reviewed the history of the matter, and continued:—
The Native Court gave judgment on the 11th March, 1958, in the first action (Atakpla v. Kano) in the following terms:—
"In this case Atakpla sued Kano to show before the Court Narteh whom he Kano referred to in a letter Exhibit "A" giving him a portion of land situate at Ayikuma. The Court has heard the evidence given by parties, and the witness called by Kano who had told the Court the agreement reached between them when the land was given. From the evidence of that witness it is clear that it was not Narteh who gave the land to Kano and who gave the land should be mentioned and not Narteh who only acted as a Linguist, and in that case Kano's letter Exhibit “A” is uncalled for. Judgment therefore for Atakpla against Kano with costs."
In this Court it has been submitted on behalf of Atakpla that that judgment operates as res judicata, since it declares Atakpla the owner of the land. Upon the clear wording of the judgment (which I have quoted in extenso) I am unable to see how a decision of that nature can operate as res judicata in the present dispute. All that that judgment decided was that if Atakpla was the grantee of the land, on any matter arising which affected that land the proper person for Atakpla to mention would be his grantor (not Narteh, who merely acted as a Linguist at the grant). In effect, therefore, that judgment upheld the contention which Kano put up in the instant case—that he is a grantee, entitled to quiet possession of the land. It does not, in my opinion, hold (as Counsel would wish the Court to accept) that Kano had no interest in the land. There is no substance in the submission of Counsel that the dispute is res judicata by reason of that judgment.
[p.389]
It was submitted further on behalf of Atakpla that the judgment of the Native Court was against the weight of evidence, because the judgment cited had led him to believe that he was the owner of the land, and that he was entitled to give notice to Kano to quit the land at his will. With respect to learned Counsel, I must say that this submission is contradicted by the letter which Atakpla wrote to Kano, and which necessitated this action. In that letter Atakpla expressly states that he was giving the notice, not in his personal capacity, but as an agent of Kwami Larkotey, the present owner of the land and son of the original owner. In the face of that, I fail to see how it can be s
AI Generated Summary
OLLENNU J decided an appeal arising out of a land dispute at Ayikuma between Atakpla and Kano, following two Native Court matters. In Atakpla v. Kano (1958), the Native Court held that if Atakpla was a grantee, the proper reference in disputes should be to his grantor, not to Narteh, who acted merely as a linguist. Later, Atakpla issued a notice to quit to Kano, explicitly acting as agent for Kwami Larkotey, the present owner and son of the original owner. In Kano v. Atakpla, the Native Court stated that a settled occupant who has built cannot be forcibly ejected under customary law without compensation or assistance. On appeal, OLLENNU J rejected arguments of res judicata and weight-of-evidence error, interpreted the customary law to protect settled grantees/licensees, and affirmed the Native Court’s position, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs.