–
NII AFOTEY ADJIN II
V.
NII ADJEI OBADSEN II AND ANOTHER
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1955
2PLR/1955/21 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1955/21 (WACA)
(1955) XIV WACA PP.649 – 650
–
BEORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
COUSSEY, J.A.
HEARNE, J.A.
–
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND ACQUIRED FOR THE SERVICE OF THE GOLD COAST COLONY AND ASHANTI SITUATE AT TESHIE NEAR ACCRA IN THE ACCRA DISTRICT OF THE EASTERN PROVINCE OF THE GOLD COAST COLONY AND REQUIRED FOR SCHOOL OF INFANTRY
NII AFOTEY ADJIN II – Appellant
V.
1. NII ADJEI OBADSEN II, ACTING TESHIE MANTSE} SUBSTITUTED FOR NII ASHITEY KAMOA II, TESHIE
2. NII ADJEI ONANO V. LA MANTSE, LABADI – Respondents
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by a claimant to compensation. Judgment of the High Court (Jackson, J., Presiding)
–
REPRESENTATION
K. A. Bossman — for Appellant
K. K. Taylor — for Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY LAW – LAND:- Public Lands Ordinance (Cap. 134), section 14 – Acquisition of Land and payment of compensation – Presumption in favour of party in possession as owner – Onus of proof on third party who claims reversionary interest and entitlement to part of compensation – Failure thereto – Legal effect
–
CASE SUMMARY
Section 14 of Cap. 134 (formerly Cap. 113, section 12) provides that when land is acquired the party in possession as owner shall be deemed to be entitled to it “unless the contrary is shown” (text in judgment infra).
Government acquired some land in the possession of Stool T. Stool N alleged that, though the other Stool had been in possession, Stool N were the owners and had allowed the other Stool to occupy on payment of a yearly tribute; and Stool N claimed a share of the compensation. The trial Judge decided that Stool N had failed to prove any reversionary rights, and Stool N appealed.
It was submitted for Stool N that Stool T had a duty to prove that their possession was such as to extinguish the rights of Stool N.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the appeal) that:
There was a presumption of ownership in favour of Stool T, who were in possession as the owners, and under the Ordinance the onus was upon Stool N to satisfy the Court to the contrary, but this Stool N failed to do.
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
This was an appeal from a judgment of Jackson, J., in a case arising out of the acquisition of land, under the Public Lands Ordinance (Cap. 113) (now Cap. 134), which was acquired by the Government for use as an Infantry Training School. The western boundary of the land acquired is situate some two miles to the east of the town of Labadi, and its eastern boundary about half a mile to the west of the town of Teshie.
The persons claiming compensation in respect of the land acquired were the representatives of the Stools of Nungoa, Teshie and Labadi. The learned trial Judge found in favour of the Teshie Stool, and dismissed the claims of the Nungoa and Labadi Stools, and it is against that decision that the Nungoa Stool appealed.
Section 12 of Cap. 113 (now section 14 of Cap. 134), raises a presumption of ownership in favour of parties in possession as apparent owners at the time land is acquired under the Ordinance. That section reads as follows:-
“In all cases where any question shall arise respecting the title to any lands to be acquired under this Ordinance the parties in possession of such lands as being the owners thereof at the time of such lands being purchased or taken, shall be deemed to have been lawfully entitled to such lands, unless the contrary be shown to the satisfaction of the Court, and such parties shall be entitled to receive the purchase money or compensation for such lands, but without prejudice to any subsequent proceedings against such’ parties at the instance of any person having or alleging a better right thereto.”
The appellant admitted that the Teshie people had been in possession of the land in question for some 240 years, but alleged that they had merely been allowed to occupy the area by the Nungoa on condition that they paid a yearly tribute of sheep and drink in recognition of the latter’s ownership, and that upon an acquisition under the Ordinance the Nungoa Stool was entitled to a portion of the compensation, said to be one-third, in respect of its reversionary rights as owner.
There was no suggestion that the Nungoa had occupied the land, nor was it alleged that they had interfered with the Teshie who had dealt with the land over a long period as if they were the absolute owners. The appellant did, however, seek to prove that the tribute had been paid by the Teshie up to about the year 1942 when they ceased to make payment.
After discussing the evidence the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the alleged tribute had not been paid within living memory, and he found, in effect, that the appellant Stool had failed, as against the respondent Stool, to establish its claim to any reversionary rights in the land. In these circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to receive any portion of the compensation awarded.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the onus was upon the respondent to prove that his possession was such as to extinguish the Nungoa Stool’s rights. In our view this is a misconception of the position. In the circumstances here there was clearly a presumption of ownership in favour of the respondent, and under the Ordinance the onus was upon the appellant to satisfy the Court to the contrary. This he failed to do, and we had no doubt that there was evidence before the trial Judge to justify the conclusion he reached. We accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at £51 17s. 0d.
–
COUSSEY, J.A.
I concur.
–
HEARNE, J.A.
I concur.
–
Appeal dismissed.