–
AGONA STOOL
V.
EX-AGONAHENE KWADJO APAW
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1943
2PLR/1943/11 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1943/11 (WACA)
(1943) IX WACA PP. 187 – 188
LEX (1943) – WACA PP. 187 – 188
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST
LANE, J.
–
BETWEEN:
AGONA STOOL – Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent
AND
EX-AGONAHENE KWADJO APAW – Defendant-Appellant-Appellant
–
REPRESENTATION
E. O. Asafu-Adjaye with H. A. N. Benjamin — for Appellant
B. K. Tomakloe — for Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY LAW:- Action for a declaration that certain property was stool property — Jurisdiction of the Asantehene’s Court thereto under section 5 of the Stool Property Protection Ordinance, 1940 — How properly treated
–
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)
COURT:- Native Tribunal — Asantehene’s “A” Court’s Jurisdiction — Action for Declaration that property is stool property — Proper Court for same — Stool Property Protection Ordinance, 1940 (No. 22 of 1940) (Gold Coast), section 5.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE:- Legislation — Obscurity — Hardship.
–
CASE SUMMARY
Plaintiff succeeded in the Asantehene’s “A” Court in an action for a declaration that certain property was stool property. On appeal, the Chief Commissioner’s Court held that the Asantehene’s Court had no jurisdiction in view of section 5 of the Stool Property Protection Ordinance, 1940, which provides that questions as to whether property is or is not Stool Property shall be determined by a Divisional Chief’s Court and declared the Tribunal’s decision void.
–
DECISION OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the appeal):
The Court commented on the great hardship caused to litigants by the legislature in such cases in making it so difficult for them to ascertain which is the proper Court to which to take their dispute.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following joint judgment was delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND LANE, J., GOLD COAST (READ BY THE PRESIDENT)
In this case the Agona Stool, through its representative the Agonahene Akyeampong Akwasi, sued the defendant, an Ex-Agonahene, in the Asantehene’s “A” Court for a declaration that certain house property in Kumasi is Agona Stool Property. The property in question is outside the Agona Division. The judgment of the Asantehene’s “A” Court was in favour of the plaintiff with costs.
On appeal to the Chief Commissioner’s Court the Acting Assistant Chief Commissioner, who constituted the Court, held that in view of the redress which the law provides in section 6 of the Stool Property Protection Ordinance, 1940 (No. 22 of 1040) which reads –
“If any question arises as to whether any property is or is not Stool property, the matter shall be enquired into and determined by the Divisional Chief’s Court; provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Divisional Chief’s Court thereon may within one month appeal to the Chief Commissioner in his administrative capacity, whose decision shall be final.”
the Asantehene’s “A” Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and he declared the proceedings before that Court void. He ordered each party to bear his own costs in both Courts. We agree with the decision of the Acting Assistant Chief Commissioner for the reason he gives. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at £27 3s 6d. We make no variation of the order of the Chief Commissioner’s Court as to Courts in the two lower Courts.
Before leaving the case we think it proper to point out the great hardship caused to litigants by the legislature having made it so difficult for them to ascertain which is the proper court to which to take their disputes. In this case the plaintiff stool has made one guess and guessed wrong. It is now called upon to guess again and choose between possible alternatives, and the question of which is right involves difficult question of interpretation, it is not for us to decide that question on the present appeal.
–