Try asking the following...
From the record of proceedings on 18th April, 1946:
By Court: The claim is for recovery of 10 cocoa farms and various buildings; judgment in the " A " Court was that he could recover, subject to the usual tenancy agreement. Before giving judgment on the appeal I must hear what "the usual tenancy agreement" is in such a case. The 4th Session of the Confederacy Council, in 1941, fixed the tribute at 1/4 " " d. a tree a year.
By Plaintiff: That is what I mean.
By Appellant: I know the rule about tribute; but this case is not about tribute. I obtained possession by writ. By the phrase "tenancy agreement" used in the "A" Court, I understand that the plaintiff should come to me and pay me Guan-sika annually. I cannot say how much that would be in this case until the farms are inspected; I would not have taken 1/4 " " d. a tree, I should have taken Guan-sika depending on the size of the farms. I do not know what I should have charged in the way of rent for the building; my council would have to decide that. I would be bound by the Confederacy Council decision of 1941, and I have heard of no change in it.
By Respondent: The house is a cottage in the farm only; I do not use it for trade - only for farming. The agreement referred to in the "A" Court judgment would include the rent of the buildings in the rent of the farms. That is the custom.
By Appellant: I would be entitled to charge rent for the buildings also but I cannot say what it would be as I have not seen the house and nobody present today can tell me its size.
Adjourned until April 25th 1946.
Judgment :
This is an appeal from the Asantehene's " A " Court. There the plaintiff claimed recovery of farms and buildings which he alleged the defendant had deprived him of, or failing recovery, damages for dispossession. The plaintiff was successful in his first claim and did not press the claim for damages; the "A" Court ordered that defendant should enter into a tenancy agreement with the pltff. and restore his farms to him. The defendant appealed to this Court.
The defendant many years ago apparently had a land case with the plaintiff's chief, the Offoasehene. The record of the case was not in evidence, nor was the judgment, but from the wording of the writ of possession. Exhibit " A " in this case, which was based on the judgment, one gathers that it laid down a boundary between Essumeja and Offoase. The plaintiff's farms and buildings are, apparently, on the Essumeja side of that boundary; the defend