NUMO NORTEY ADJEIFIO & OTHERS v. NII MATE TESA & OTHERS

AYEBI J.A.

I am also of the opinion that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed on the grounds as held in the lead judgment. My small comment is to highlight the nature of the evidence led by the plaintiffs and 5th defendant/appellant in particular in support of their rival claims.

The piece of land on which the Teshie people settled when they left Labadi was said to have been purchased from the people of Nungua. This piece of land was not said to have extended to the railway line.

There is evidence that the land was shared amongst the quarters of Teshie during the reign of Nii Ashitey Akomfra II as mantse. Numo Kofi Anum, founder of Tesa is said to have hosted Nii Akomfra II when he stopped over on his way to be installed a mantse. If that were so, then Tesa was in existence before the Teshie lands were shared amongst the quarters.

In any case this evidence of the founding of Tesa on the one hand and the founding of Teshie and the sharing of the land amongst the quarters on the other, are events which took place over a century or more ago. These matters were handed to the present generation as history and thus qualify as traditional evidence.

The plaintiffs and defendants/appellants claim a common relief which is declaration of title to the disputed land. In Ebu vrs Ababio [1957] 2 WALR 55, the view is held that although traditional evidence has a part to play in an action for declaration of title to land, there are cases in which a party can succeed even if he fails to obtain a finding in his favour on the traditional evidence.

I do not find the evidence of the plaintiffs/respondents in support of their claim especially on their root of title having been disproved or assailed in any way by the 5th defendant/appellant in the instant case. But should that be the case, the best way to resolve the conflict is to test the traditional history by reference to facts in recent years established by the evidence and see which of the two histories is the most probable – see Adjeibi-Kojo vrs Bonsie [1957] 3 WALR 257, SC explained in Adjei vrs Acquah [1991] 1 GLR 13, SC.

Apart from the unchallenged evidence of the origin of the name “Tesa” narrated by the plaintiffs, only descendants of Numo Akofi Anum have settled on the land ever since, to the exclusion of any other family from Kle Musum quarter. The headman of Tesa was also a descendant of Numa Kofi Anum. They farm and rear animals on the land. Over and above, plaintiffs have made grants of po