–
CHIEF KWEKU SERBEH
V.
OHENE KOBINA KARIKARI
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,
12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1939
PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 41 OF 1938
LEX (1939) – P.C. 41 (1938)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1939/7 (WACA)
(1939) P.C. APPEALS NO. 41 OF 1938
(1939) V WACA P. 34
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
LORD THANKERTON
LORD ALNESS
LORD FAIRFIELD
–
BETWEEN:
CHIEF KWEKU SERBEH – Appellant
AND
OHENE KOBINA KARIKARI – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
FROM THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
NA
–
CASE SUMMARY
The appellant seeks to have the boundary determined as between his tribal lands and those of the respondent as regards the part of that boundary that is in dispute. The Chief Commissioner, by his judgment of the 27th November, 1936, determined the boundary to be a straight line between the points A and B, which are shown on plans B and D, a boundary for which there was evidence before him, as being the one agreed on at the time that the lands were given by the respondent’s predecessor to the appellant’s predecessor.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Held that: this is one of the clearest cases of the type which justifies their Lordships’ practice in not hearing arguments seeking to disturb concurrent judgments in the Court below on pure questions of fact.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, DELIVERED THE I2TH JUNE, 1939
[Delivered by LORD THANKERTON]
In the present suit the appellant seeks to have the boundary determined as between his tribal lands and those of the respondent as regards the part of that boundary that is in dispute. The Chief Commissioner, by his judgment of the 27th November, 1936, determined the boundary to be a straight line between the points A and B, which are shown on plans B and D, a boundary for which there was evidence before him, as being the one agreed on at the time that the lands were given by the respondent’s predecessor to the appellant’s predecessor.
On appeal by the present appellant, the Court of Appeal of West Africa, in an admirably brief judgment, as it appears to their Lordships, covered all the points. They pointed out that the appeal was on a question of fact, the other points having been abandoned:
“The trial Court accepted the respondent’s evidence and rejected the appellant’s. We see no reason to differ”.
In their Lordships’ view this is one of the clearest cases of the type which justifies their Lordships’ practice in not hearing arguments seeking to disturb concurrent judgments in the Court below on pure questions of fact. Accordingly their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed with costs.
Not reported.
–