October 5, 1942
DIVISIONAL COURT (COLONIAL)
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
Judgment :
The declaration sought by the Plaintiffs - of whom, it may be noted, two were not sufficiently interested to appear or be represented at the court is tantamount to a request that they be regarded as the Native Authority for the Ntrubu lands and so obtain solely for themselves the rents referred to in section 16 of Cap. 121.
It has not I trust ever been denied that the plaintiffs are occupiers of
these lands. They are also - as has amply been proved by documents each a member of the Krachi Native Authority Council - which was defined as the Krachiwura and his Council at page 435 of Volume III of the Laws so long ago as 1935. The order also states that the limits of the N.A. area coincide with those lands subject to the Krachiwura of Krachi and occupied by ". . . the Ntrubus, etc."
I am satisfied that the statements of the Plaintiffs signed by them before the D.C. Krachi and the Krachiwura's linguist in 1935 formed the basis for the Order defining the Native Authority area in 1935.
The Krachiwura does not, I am assured, claim the fruits of the Plaintiffs' lands as his personal property, any more than he does with his own stool land. He is not the Native Authority by virtue of being Krachiwura but by the authority of GOVT, as expressed in a lawful order. Also - he - with the Plaintiffs is bound by the terms of the Land and Native Rights Ordinance in which this important preamble occurs:
"Whereas it is expedient that the existing customary rights of the natives of the Protectorate to use and enjoy the land of the Protectorate and the natural fruits thereof in sufficient quantity to enable them to provide for the sustenance of themselves and their families should be assured, protected and preserved (the underlining is mine)."
Further section 4 declares that
"all native lands and rights in and over the same lands shall . . . be under the control and subject to the disposition of the Governor, and shall be held and administered for the use and common benefit, direct or indirect, of the natives."
Ample evidence exists to show that the plaintiffs have resented this restraint as they have wished to sell and otherwise dispose of their stool land for their personal profit. Lamentable examples of these malpractices exist in areas where this control is not exercised.
The claim of the plaintiffs for the declaration is dismissed.
It has been clearly shown that the Krachiwura purse does not collect rents and tributes from the Ntrubus on any of the Kra
AI Generated Summary
In a dispute over authority and land revenues in the Krachi area, Gibbs, Chief Commissioner, held that the plaintiffs—occupiers of the Ntrubu lands and members of the Krachi Native Authority Council—were not entitled to a declaration recognising them alone as the Native Authority so as to receive the rents under section 16 of Cap. 121. The Native Authority was defined in 1935 as the Krachiwura and his Council, based on plaintiffs’ own statements to the D.C. Krachi and the Krachiwura’s linguist. The court emphasised the Land and Native Rights Ordinance’s assurance of native customary rights and section 4’s vesting of control in the Governor for the common benefit, rejecting plaintiffs’ attempts to personally dispose of stool land. The Krachiwura does not personally collect rents; revenues are administered for the benefit of the Krachi peoples. Plaintiffs share in Native Authority revenue and should seek public estimates and accounts from the Native Treasury or D.C. Krachi. The injunction sought to vary rent collection was beyond the court’s power; the case was dismissed with no order as to costs, with recourse under section 21 of Cap. 121 indicated.