KOFI BAINYI FOR HIMSELF AS HEAD AND ON BEHALF OF AMUAH EBIRADZIE STOOL FAMILY OF ESSAM ABUDU v. BORDAH OF MANKESSIM NOW AT ESSAM
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- Dennison, J
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
1951
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns a land dispute between the Plaintiff (Head of the Amuah Ebiradzi Stool Family) and the Defendant over a piece of land called "Yedukwaa" in the Ekumfi State. The Plaintiff claimed ancestral ownership and that the Defendant was a tenant, while the Defendant asserted his ancestors cleared and settled the land. The court, relying on customary law, ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. Key points of the judgment include: (1) According to customary law, a member of one State cannot own land in another State except by grant or purchase. (2) The Defendant, being from Mankessim State, could not own land in Akumfi State without proving grant or purchase. (3) The Plaintiff's claim of ownership was supported by witness testimony and boundary evidence. (4) The court rejected the Defendant's claim of acquiring title through clearing virgin forest, as this was contrary to customary law for strangers without permission. (5) The Plaintiff was awarded the Declaration of Title, but the claim for Injunction failed due to the Plaintiff's counsel's concession. The case highlights the importance of customary law in land ownership disputes, especially regarding cross-state land claims.
Judgment:
The Plaintiff as Head of the Amuah Ebiradzi Stool Family of Essam Abudu in the Ekumfi State sues for himself as head, and on behalf of the other members of the said family, for a Declaration of Title to the land called "Yedukwaa ", which is described in paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim; he further claims an Injunction restraining the Defendant his Agents, Servants and/or workmen from alienating or in any other way interfering with the land.
Mr. Benjamin, at the close of the case, submitted that the evidence clearly supported his claim that the Defendant was a tenant of the Plaintiffs and
nothing more, if successful on this issue he conceded he would not be entitled to an Injunction as prayed, more especially as the Plaintiffs were willing to allow the Defendant to remain on the land provided he paid the annual rental.
This suit originally started before Van Lare, Ag. J., who after hearing evidence decided that as the claim might affect land claimed by Kwami Mensah and Kwamin Opantsir, stayed the proceedings until such time as the Surveyor indicated, on the existing plan, the land claimed by these latter two persons. When the case came before me on 3-7-51 both Counsel were agreed that in the light of the new survey the land claimed by Kwamin and Opantsir would not be in any manner affected by the decsion in this case. Both Counsel further submitted that I should act on the evidence already recorded by Van Lare, Ag. J., having perused the evidence so recorded I agreed to this course.
The Assessor delivered the following considered opinion:-
"The evidence adduced by the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant and their witnesses shows clearly that the land in dispute is in the Akumfi State.
"Mankessim from which the Defendant hails is a distinct State from Akumfi.
"The Plaintiff in his evidence stated that his ancestor migrated from Tekyiman and cleared the virgin forest and founded a village, Yaw Edu Kwaa, but his predecessor Kwesi Amuah granted permission to Abonvi on payment of 5" " s. annual rent.
"The Defendant also alleged that his ancestor migrated from Tekyiman and settled at Mankessim but after a time went and spot a land and moved to Eyisam and founded a village Edu Kwaa. If the Defendant's statement is correct the next question is how did he get into Akumfi State? According to custom no member of one State can own land in another State except:
(1) By grant, and
(2) By purchase.
"If the Defendant denies having been granted perm