NKANSAH II v. YIADOM III
1960
CORAM
- VISCOUNT SIMONDS
- LORD JENKINS
- THE RT. HON. MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
1960
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around a land dispute and the applicability of estoppel based on a previous judgment. The Privy Council determined that the 1940 judgment could not estop the respondent (Nkwatia stool) from asserting their claim in the current case. The Council considered several factors: the intention of the judge in the 1940 case to bind only the Wusuta stool, the lack of a formal decree, and the amendment of land description without notice to the respondent. The Council emphasized that the binding effect of a judgment can be limited by the court's intention and the formal decree issued. They also noted that a party not given notice of amendments to pleadings cannot be bound by a judgment based on those amendments. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.
JUDGMENT OF MR. M.L.D. DE SILVA
M.L.D. De Silva delivered the judgment of their Lordships. The only point in dispute between parties in this appeal and the only point for decision by their Lordships is whether or not the plea of estoppel is entitled to succeed. It is agreed by the parties that if the plea of estoppel succeeds the appeal ought to be allowed and that if it fails it should be dismissed. Their Lordships will now examine the judgment and proceedings in the 1940 action upon which the plea is based.
That action was begun in 1940 in the Tribunal of the Paramount Chief of Kwahu between Bukuruwa stool as plaintiff and the Chief of Atipradaa and one of his subjects as defendants for a declaration of title to the land. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast in March, 1942. There was some dispute as to whether the land which was the subject-matter of that action was identical with the land claimed by the present appellant but in view of what follows it is not necessary for their Lordships to decide that point. Their Lordships will assume without deciding against the respondent (who succeeds on the appeal) that it was identical.
In July, 1942, on the application of the Burukuwa stool, the Chief of Wusuta was added as a defendant on the ground that the original defendants were his subjects and claimed to occupy the land under his authority. The Bukuruwa stool in its statement of claim (in the 1940 action) pleaded that the predecessor of the Chief of Atipradaa had been permitted by the [p.9] Bukuruwa to hunt, reside and make farms on payment of tolls but now refused to pay tribute and, in concert with the Chief of Wusuta, claimed the property as part of the stool property of the Wusuta stool.
In 1943, a surveyor and the parties visited the land in order to prepare a plan for the purposes of the case. In January, 1944, the respondent made an application to be joined as a defendant on the ground that when the surveyor visited the land the elders of his stool had been invited to be present and had discovered that a large part of the land claimed in the action was the respondent's stool land. On the 11th February, 1944, this application, though opposed was granted. An appeal against the order for joinder was dismissed on the 22nd November, 1944, by the Court of Appeal.
On the 25th August, 1945, on an application made by the present appellant (plaintiff in the 1940 action), the Paramount Chief of Kwahu was joined as c