The following judgment was delivered :WEBBER, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
This is an appeal from the judgment of L. W. Judd, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Central Province, who allowed an appeal with costs to be taxed from the native Tribunal of Anamabu in a claim in which the plaintiff claimed £25 damages from the defendant for trespass of land known as Kwabor Kudu.
The grounds of appeal are :-
1. Because the judgment was contrary to the weight of evidence.
2. Because the judgment was contrary to native law and custom.
3. Because the judgment was wrong in law in that the Court below had not any fresh evidence.
4. Because the judgment was otherwise erroneous.
The grounds were argued together, Counsel for appellant submitting that the Commissioner was not justified in allowing the appeal. For the respondent it was contended that there was no evidence of ownership or possession by the plaintiff and that the Commissioner was right in reversing the judgment of the Tribunal. Now, when examining the judgment of the Commissioner I find that he supported the judgment of the Tribunal on all the grounds of appeal before him except one ground, namely, that the judgment was against the weight of evidence, and in this respect he referred to an informal arbitration arranged between the parties for the purpose of settling matters amicably, and he laid special stress or the evidence of Rockson in a previous case between the parties and about the same land, which evidence he said was the best evidence the defendant could obtain having held that although there was some evidence of possession by the defendant-appellant, it was doubtful if all of his evidence related to the land in dispute.
Now dealing with the grounds of appeal before the Commissioner, I agree with him that the fact that there was no report of inspection by the Tribunal was not a vital defect in the record. I agree with him also that the question of possession stressed by Counsel for the defendant-appellant was of no vital. importance as the Tribunal determined the question of ownership rather than the question of trespass. He was no doubt mindful of the dictum of P. C. Smyly, C.]., in his judgment in the case Ohene Kwesi Abuagyi 11 v. Ohene Amua Gyebu, when he said: "Personally I do not lay any stress on the form in which an action is brought before the native Tribunal so long as the issue involved is clear." It is obvious to my mind that the native Tribunal in this case treated the issue as one of ow
