KWABENA OFOSUHENE APPENTENG II v. AGYEMAN, Odikro of Dampong
February 18, 1938
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
- Warrington, Assistant Chief Commissioner
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
February 18, 1938
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This land dispute concerns caretaker rights over Dampong land, whose ownership is conceded to the Asantehene’s Stool. The Plaintiff-Respondent, aligned with the Bompata Stool, argues that the Dampon Stool migrated from Amantina with him and served under Bompata, placing Dampon’s occupation through his stool. The Defendant-Appellant claims Dampon’s independence, relying on government actions surrounding the 1935 restoration of the Ashanti Confederacy, yet he did not present his claim to the Committee of Privileges when invited. The judgment sets out caretaker rights and obligations under Ashanti custom, rejects claims based on grants from the dispossessed Omanhene of Oda or unproven government grants, and situates the relationship in the historical context of the 1873–74 expedition and the Yaa Asantewaa War of 1900. The Asantehene’s "A" Court reversed the Divisional Court and required proof of independence; the present court, led by Assistant Chief Commissioner Warrington, upholds that decision and enters judgment for the Plaintiff-Respondent, clarifying that distribution of proceeds is not in issue.
Judgment:
The Plaintiff-Respondent in this case is claiming the title to land known as Dampong land, his claim is disputed by Defendant appellant but it is clear that neither party now claims ownership, which is admittedly vested in the Asantehene's Stool, but the rights of Caretaker on behalf of the Asantehene.
The rights of a Caretaker are:-
(a) The right of free occupation. He and his subjects may farm on the land free.
(b) The right to collect tolls, tribute or rent from strangers who wish to farm on the land.
(c) The right to lease concessions, subject to the consent of the owner of the land.
The principal obligations of the Caretaker are:-
(i) to defend the Asantehene's title to the land in War or in the Courts. In this he is entitled to assistance from his overlord.
(ii) to pay to the owner of the land a share of all profits accruing from the land by way of rents and tribute.
The Defendant-Appellant's right to occupy the land is not in dispute, the point in issue is whether he holds the land from the Asantehene or through the Plaintiff-Respondent. If the Plaintiff-Respondent establishes his claim the right of the 'Defendant-Appellant would be affected in two ways viz. the Plaintiff-Respondent's subjects can farm on the land free instead of paying rent or tribute and secondly the Defendant-Appellant's share of rents and tribute is reduced by a payment to the PlaintiffRespondent as well as to the Asantehene.
From the evidence it is clear that neither party has any right or title to the land other than such as may be established by undisputed occupation for a period of sixty years.
The fact that they were able to remain on Ashanti land without renewing their allegiance to the Kumasi Chiefs whom they served can be accounted for by the disturbed state of Ashanti between the time of Sir Garnet Wolsely's expedition in 1873-74, when Kumasi was burnt and the Yaa Asantiwa War of 1900 when the British Government took over the administration of Ashanti.
Any claim based on a grant by the Omanhene of Oda can carry no weight since he had been driven out by the Ashantis several years before the parties to this case settled on the land at the time of the Asafu Adjaye War in 1874.
Similarly any claim to a grant of land by the Government cannot be accepted without proof and it is admitted by the Plaintiff at any rate that changes made by Government were purely administrative and affected only the Political relationship between Chiefs and not the ownership