–
OMANKYIAME KOBINA KWANSA EFI OF MANKESSIM
V.
KWESI ENYINFUL OF ENYAN APAA
THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT ACCRA, GOLD COAST
11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1954
2PLR/1954/39 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1954/39 (WACA)
(1954) XIV WACA PP. 424-425
LEX (1954) – XIV WACA 424-425
–
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
COUSSEY, J.A.
WINDSOR-AUBREY, J.
–
BETWEEN:
OMANKYIAME KOBINA KWANSA EFI OF MANKESSIM – Appellant
AND
KWESI ENYINFUL OF ENYAN APAA – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by plaintiff from Land Court’s decision allowing the defendant’s appeal from the Native Court: No. 94/53.
–
REPRESENTATION
Hayfron-Benjamin — for Appellant
No appearance by or for Respondent
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY LAW:- Native Courts – Decisions in land cases – View on appeal – Appeals in Civil Cases – View on appeals from Native Courts in land cases.
–
CASE SUMMARY
The plaintiff sued on trespass claiming a boundary between his land and the defendants at a certain point; the defendant alleged that the boundary was at another point. The Native Court of trial viewed the place and being satisfied with the evidence of a witness for the plaintiff as to the boundary point, gave judgment for the plaintiff.
On appeal by the defendant, the Land Court Judge set aside the judgment on grounds which he did not explain. The plaintiff appealed.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (allowing the appeal and restoring the decision of the Native Court) that:
1. Decisions of native tribunals on land cases within their jurisdictions, arrived at after a fair hearing on relevant evidence, should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they, are wrong;
2. In this case, there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the decision of the Native Court.
Case cited:-
(1) Abakah Nthah v. Anguah Bennieh, 2 W.A.C.A. 1.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
COUSSEY, J. A.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Land Court, Cape Coast, Central Judicial Division, setting aside a judgment of the Native Court “B” of the Enyan-Na-Breman Confederacy Area which awarded the plaintiff-appellant damages for trespass on land called Anuma Nkyia. The issue turned on whether the boundary between the plaintiff’s land and that of the defendant was along the Enyan-Maim-Apaa motor road as the plaintiff alleged, in which case there was a trespass, or whether the boundary was at a seventh hillock or ant-hill a short distance away from the road as the defendant asserted, in which case there was no trespass. After hearing evidence, the Native Court viewed the land where the trespass was alleged to have taken place and, on the same day, delivered judgment for the plaintiff for £10 damages and costs to be taxed. The judgment concludes: “We are satisfied with Obu’s evidence and therefore give judgment for plaintiff.” Obu was the plaintiff’s fifth and last witness. He gave evidence under the name of Kwebu Abuw and he testified that his predecessor formed triple boundary with plaintiff and defendant on the motor road already referred to and that the defendant’s trespass was committed at the place where the triple boundary stands.
The learned Judge of the Land Court set the judgment aside because, to his mind, it was inconsistent with the inspection report and he took the view that plaintiff had not proved his title to the area in dispute.
In what respect the report of the inspection was inconsistent with the judgment, or in what particular the plaintiff had failed to prove title, the learned Judge did not state. It was in fact not a dispute as to a large area of land, but as to which of two alternative boundaries set up by the parties a short distance from each other was the true one. We do not consider that the learned Judge was right in setting aside the Native Court’s finding of fact on this issue and in this connection it may be as well to set out again the general principle, as it was enunciated by the Privy Council, upon which an appellate Court should act in appeals from Native Courts. In Abakah Nthah v. Anguah Bennie. (1) Lord Atkin said at p. 3:-
“By colonial legislation all suits relating to the ownership of land held under native tenure are placed within the exclusive original jurisdiction of native tribunals, unless satisfactory reason to the contrary is shown. It appears to their Lordships that decisions of the native tribunal on such matters which are peculiarly within their knowledge, arrived at after a fair hearing on relevant evidence, should not be disturbed without very clear proof that they are wrong, and their Lordships fail to find such proof in the present case.”
This passage applies in its entirety in the present case. There was no sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment of the Native Court, and we were therefore of the opinion that it should be restored.
–
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
I concur.
–
WINDSOR-AUBREY, J.
I concur.
–
Appeal allowed; decision of Native Court restored.
–