W. W. SALEEBY v. O. M. NORTEY

Judgment:

The plaintiff, W. W. Saleeby claims as against the defendant O. M. Nortey £200 damages for trespass and recovery of possession of land situate at Labadi.

The land in question is the southern portion of that piece of land delineated in red on the plan attached to the deed dated the 1st November, 1949, and registered as No. 446/51 and which was a conveyance of land made by Nii Ankamafio, the Head of the Abafum Quarter of Labadi to the defendant Okwei Mensah and who is also known as O. M. Nortey. It was as a result of that conveyance and the entry of the defendant into the southern area, that precipitated this action by reason of a conveyance of this southern portion of the land made to the plaintiff, Saleeby, by one Hansen Peter Swaniker on the 21 st August, 1945, and which bears the Lands Registry No. 591/1945.

The evidence of Mr. Saleeby, who is a Dental Surgeon, was that the vendor was well known to him, being the husband of a patient of his, and that this deed was duly executed and delivered to him by the said Hansen Peter Swaniker and that the indenture dated the 13th August, 1945, a conveyance of this land made to Hansen Peter Swaniker by the Mantse of Labadi was handed to him at the same time.

Mr. Akuffo Addo, learned Counsel for the plaintiff then called into the box his next witness who took the oath in the name of Hansen Peter Swaniker and testified to selling this land to Mr. Saleeby and executing the deed dated the 21st August, 1945, which was admitted and marked as No. 4. This witness was cross-examined as to what had occurred in the negotiations prior to the execution of this deed by the La Manche.

It appears that in 1947 there was litigation (1) in respect of that area of land situate to the immediate north of the land now in issue and in which the La Manche challenged the right of the present defendant to build without first obtaining his leave, and in which Nii Ankamafio, the Head of the Abafum Quarter was joined as a defendant.

That litigation ended in the West Atrican Court of Appeal when on the 30th May, 1950, that Court affirmed the decision of the Native Court to the effect that the La Manche is the only person entitled according to La custom to grant lands to subjects of the Stool, and which he does with the consent of his Divisional Council.

It follows that in the land now in issue and which is only a part of that land which formed one subject of that Native Court case, is governed by the same principle of customary l