–
OMANHENE BAIDOO BONSO XII & OTHERS
V.
THE GUINEA TIMBER EXPLORERS AND ANOTHER
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1951
2PLR/1951/10 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1951/10 (WACA)
(1951) XII WACA PP. 338 – 339
LEX (1951) – XIII WACA 338 – 339
–
BEFORE THEIR LRODSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
COUSSEY, J.
KORSAH, J.
–
BETWEEN:
1. OMANHENE BAIDOO BONSO XII & OTHERS
2. OMANHENE KWESI AGYEMAN VII & OTHERS
3. ALL OF BUSUA AND LOWER DIXCOVE STATES RESPECTIVELY – Grantors-Appellants
AND
THE GUINEA TIMBER EXPLORERS, ACTING BY ITS MANAGER JOSEPH ANNUM ESSUMAN-Claimants
HIMA DEKYI XII OF UPPER DIXCOVE – Opposer-Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal from the Land Court, Western Judicial Division, W.A.C.A. CIV.APP.21/51.
–
REPRESENTATION
F. Awoonor-Williams — for Appellants
K. Adumua-Bossman — for the Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY LAW:- Concession Inquiry – Opposition to grant of certificate of validity on the grounds of overlordship of oppose – Power of the Judicial Committee of the Provincial Council of Chiefs to determine overlordship
–
CASE SUMMARY
The appellant was the grantor of a concession. The Concessions Court, Sekondi, found in favour of the respondent-opposer on the grounds that he had established overlordship by virtue of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Provincial Council of Chiefs. Counsel for the appellant argued that the said committee had no authority to make a pronouncement with regard to the status of the opposer.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the Appeal) that:
The question whether the opposer was the overlord of the appellant was a dispute of a constitutional nature, and that under section 97(1) of the Native Administration Ordinance (Cap.76) the Judicial Committee of the Provincial Council of Chiefs had power to determine this issue.
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgement was delivered:
KORSAH, J.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Concessions Court, Sekondi, in favour of the opposer to the Concession Enquiry No. 2175. Omanhene Hima Dekyi XII of Upper Dixcove, filed notice of opposition to the granting of a certificate of validity of the said Concession on the grounds, inter alia:-
(1) That his Stool is the overlord of all the lands in Lower Dixcove.
(2) That the consent of his Stool is necessary to all valid grants of the lands in Lower Dixcove.
(3) That the Concession No. 2175 intended to be granted, has been granted without the consent of his Stool.
In reply to the above grounds of opposition the Omanhene Kwesi Agyeman VII and his people of Lower Dixcove denied the allegations contained in the said grounds.
The learned Judge, after taking evidence adduced by the parties in support of their respective claims, gave judgment in favour of the opposer, Omanhene Hima Dekyi XII of Upper Dixcove, and declared that he has by the finding of the Judicial Committee of the Provincial Council of Chiefs established his right to the overlordship of the lands and therefore he should be joined with Lower Dixcove as a grantor of the Concession.
Learned Counsel for appellants contended that the said Judicial Committee had no authority to make the pronouncement they had made with respect to the status of his client; but he abandoned this contention when the Court referred to the provisions of the Native Administration Ordinance, section 97, which gave the necessary jurisdiction to the Judicial Committee of the Provincial Council of Chiefs to hear and determine inter alia, “All disputes of a constitutional nature arising between two or more Paramount Chief etc.”
It is not disputed that the question whether Omanhene Hima Dekyi of Upper Dixcove is the overlord of Omanhene Kwesi Agyeman of Lower Dixcove, is a dispute of a constitutional nature and that in such a case the decision of the Judicial Committee is final. This disposed of the main issue in the trial, and as the learned Judge has fully dealt with all subsidiary matters raised by the grantors, there is no merit in this appeal and it must therefore fail. It is accordingly dismissed.
–
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
The main argument on this appeal was directed to the question whether the Judicial Committee had jurisdiction to determine a constitutional question of paramountcy or overlordship as between Upper Dixcove and Lower Dixcove Stools. This point is effectively disposed of by section 97(1) of Chapter 76, of the Native Administration Ordinance. I agree with my brother Korsah that there is no merit in this appeal and that it should be dismissed with costs.
–
COUSSEY, J.
I concur.
Appeal dismissed.
–