KWAMINA KUMA

A house purchaser entered into possession of land held under a concession after executing a written agreement and paying five shillings monthly. He had bought a house on the parcel from a prior occupier for £30 and improved it, living there about seven years until the concessionary landholders served a notice to quit. He sued to restrain demolition or obtain compensation. The trial judge found the landholders had not proved he understood the writing, excluded it, posited a verbal tenancy, and dismissed the claim. On appeal, Chief Justice Kingdon of Nigeria, Chief Justice Petrides of the Gold Coast, and Justice Yates held that once the written agreement was excluded there was no agreement because the parties were never ad idem. The occupier’s possession stemmed from mutual mistake, entitling the landholders to recover possession while preserving the occupier’s right to remove the building by native law and custom. The compensation claim failed because the claimant did not prove the asserted custom. The appeal was dismissed with costs.