Appeal Court.
16th Dec.,19:18. Appeal from
Court of Chief Commissioner
exercising appellate
jurisdiction.
Boundary dispute.
The
plaintiff sued the defendant in
the native tribunal and on
issues or fact was unsuccessful.
He appealed to the Court of the
Chief Commissioner, again on
issues of fact, and was
successful. His opponent
appealed to the Appeal Court.
Held: (Kingdon,
C.J., dissenting), on the issues
of fact the native tribunal was
plainly wrong, judgment of Chief
Commissioner affirmed, and
appeal dismissed.
Frans
Dove for Appellant.
E. O.
Asafu-Adjaye (E. P.
Asafu-Adjaye with him) for
Respondent ..
The following
judgments were delivered:-
WEBB, C.J.,
SIERRA LEONE.
This action
commenced in the native tribunal
where the claim and defence are
thus set out: "Plaintiff swore
the general "oath that the
defendant's subjects have
encroached upon his "land known
as Nkwantanan and the defendant
replied that " Nkwantanan land
is his stool property." the
record continues, "Both parties
admit that the boundary between
them on the " disputed area had
been demarcated by Captain
Armitage .... " and accordingly
the Court sent out " four
messengers to go with "
certified copies of the boundary
and find out as to which of the
" parties has encroached upon
the boundary and entered on the
" land of the other."
The
demarcation, which was made by
Captain Armitage in W07, was a
demarcation of the boundary
between the lands of Bekwai
(which iududed the lands of the
appellant) and Adansi (which
included the lands of the
respondent) and it sets out the
boundary, so far as material to
the present dispute, as follows:
" The boundary follows the
thalweg of the Dankrang river to
its " junction with the Agugu
river. Then it follows the
thalweg " of the Agugu river to
the point where the path from
Jidiedema " to Meduma crosses
it. Thence it follows the said
path to the point where it
is crossed by the Subontina
stream ....and Captain Armitage
directed that boundary posts
were to be erected (inter
alia) "2. At the point of
junction of the Dankrang "and
Agugu rivers. 3. At the point
where the path from " Jidiedema
to Meduma crosses the Agugu
river. 4. At the point " where
the said path crosses the
Subontina stream."
The
"messengers," accompanied by
representatives of the parties,
went over the ground and their
report makes clear what is the
dispute. The boundary between
the parties at the place in
dispute runs roughly East and
West the appellants being to the
North and the respondents to the
South of it. 'the Agugu river
runs roughly North and South
(the flow is to the North into
the Dankrang and at the junction
was found a "packed stone pillar
"); to the South, where the path
said by the respondents to be
that leading from .1 idiedema to
Meduma (i.e. from East to
\Vest) crossed the Agugu, there
was found "a heap of pile
stones." At this point a stream,
the Kukra, flowing from the
South joins the Agugu, and the
appellant's case is thus put in
the report: ' , We asked
Amoafulhene to show us the path
" leading to Meduma and he was
not able and said we should not
" talk about the path; and
instead of the path he took the
course " of stream Kukra to be
his boundary and on arriving at
a certain " place getting to the
source Amoafulhene branched on
the right " on dry ground and
walked to stream Abu where there
is a pile "of stone pillar." The
report concludes: "This boundary
of "Amoafulhene does not appear
anywhere in the boundary "
demarcated by Captain Armitage
between Adansi and Bekwai. " So
we find out that Amoaful people
have trespassed on Adansi "
lands."
Before the
native tribunal the appellant
said that the report did not
indicate the correct boundary
and the tribunal decided to hear
evidence about the erection of
the boundary pORtS. In fact only
three witnesses gave any
material evidence. Boaman was
asked: "Do you know that
Jidiedema road to Meduma is tbe
" boundary between Adansi and
Bekwai?" to which he answerpd "
No." Kofi Darkwa, who claimed to
have been a representative of
Bekwai on the demarcation
described the boundary" " to the
point where River Argu joins
River Dankrang. Here " one
pillar was put up. Thence
through Argu stream to a village
" Gyedu-gyima on west of River
Argu. Thence River Kukurah, "
thence on a straight line to the
source of Kukurah stream and "
thence to Meduma village
and he said in cross-
examination that the road from
Gyedu-gyima to Meduma' was not
the boundary between Bekwai and
Adansi. Kwame Apetenteng
(linguist to the AdansiheIlle)
on the other band said: "The "
boundary started from River
Agugu thence to the path where "
Agugu crossed it, thence through
the path to River Abu."
Upon this the
native tribunal was " satisfied
that the defend" ant has not
encroached upon the boundary
demarcated between " Adansi and
Bekwai."
An appeal was
taken to the Court of the Chief
Commissioner for the purpose of
which a plan was preparetl
showing the alternative lines
of the boundary, and the
surveyor said in his evidence
that " there are two bush paths,
one going along the yellow line
" (the boundary according to the
respondent) and one going' on
the " red line" (the boundary
according to the appellant) "
following " more or less the
Kokora and Akwaben ·streams.
None of the " boundary pillars
between the junction of Agogo
and Meduma " bush path and Abu
stream could be found Both
the bush paths I have mentioned
above eventually lead towards "
Meduma."
The Chief
Commissioner reversed the
decision of. the native
tribunal. After quoting Captain
Armitage's description of the
boundary (given above) he said:
If Captain Armitage had"
intended that the bush path (if
there ever was one which I
doubt) " which indicated the
boundary was that which follows
the course " of Kokorah stream
and the Akwaben stream it seems
curious " that no mention of
these streams is made in his
decision. I " think therefore it
would be unreasonable to accept
Amoaful's " description of where
the boundary runs, and I agree
with the " report of the
Inspectors sent out by the Court
below."
I agree with
the decision of the Chief
Commissioner. I recognise that
he, sitting as an Appellate
Court, was reversing the
decision of the native tribunal
on a question of fact, and I
reeognise further that an
Appellate Court is only at
liberty to do this when it is
satisfied that the decision of
the trial Court is plainly
wrong. But. in this case I think
that the decision of the native
tribunal was plainly wrong. In
the first place if, as the
respondent contends, the
boundary followed first the
Agugu river, then its tributary
the Kukra i.e. from north
to south) and then turned along
a path (running from east to
west), it is inconceivable, to
my mind, that the Kukra stream
would not have been mentioned as
the boundary. Then; it appears
that, whatever other boundary
pillars may have been erected,
those dirt'ctecl by Captain
Armitage to be set up are, as
one would imagine, at points
where the boundary turns off in
a new direction, or' leaves some
natural feature. So we get a
pillar at the junction of the
Agugu river and the path to
Meduma, which is also where the
Kukra stream joins the Agugu.
This would be the natural place
for a pillar if the boundary
leaves the river there and turns
to the west along the path. But
if the boundary continued on to
the south along the Kukra stream
there would have been no object
in putting a pillar there; where
the pillar would be wanted was
where the boundary left the
Kukra and followed the other
path to Meduma. But no one says
there is or ever was any pillar
there. Finally the two witnesses
who gave evidence before the
native tribunal in favour of the
appellant's case both said, not
that the respondent . was trying
to indicate the wrong path of
two as' the boundary, but that
the path from Jidiedema to
Meduma was not the boundary.
This evidence, in my opinion,
ought not to have been acted
upon because it is contrary to
Captain Armitage's demarcation
which definitely states that
this path, wherever it is, forms
the boundary. It seems to me
that this is a case which turns,
not so much upon direct
evidence, as "upon inferences "
from facts which are not in
doubt," namely, the description
of the boundary by Captain
Armitage and the place where he
directed the boundary post (at
the place where the path crossed
the Agugu) to be erected j and
in such a case " the Appellate
Court "is in as good a position
to decide as the trial Judge."
Powell v. Streatham Manor
Nursing Home, 1935 A.C. per
Lord Wright at p. 267).
I am
therefore of opinion that the
decision of the Chief
Commissioner should be affirmed,
with the addition to it of a
declaration that the boundary
between the lands of the
appellants and those of the
respondent follows the line
marked yellow on the plan
(Exhibit " D ").
PETRIDES, C.J.,
GOLD COAST.
If the
judgment of the native tribunal
could be regarded merely as a
dismissal of the plaintiff's
claim on the ground that he had
failed to establish his claim, I
should hold that the judgment of
the native tribunal should not
be disturbed.
Although in
substance' the action before the
tribunal was one of trespass
there can be no doubt that the
judgment will henceforth be
regarded as amounting to a
declaration of title to
Nkwantanan land in favour of
Amoaful. The record leaves me in
no doubt that the defendant set
up a claim to this land based,
not on the boundaries laid down
by Captain Armitage, but on what
the defendant contended were the
boundaries demarcated in
consequence of the validated
decision of that very
experienced Commissioner,
Captain Armitage ..
The native
tribunal adopted a very unusual
procedure after the four
messengers had ··reported in
favour of the plaintiff. It
decided to call witnesses
instead of leaving it to the
parties to do so. These
witnesses were to prove that
pillars or posts were put on the
points indicated by Oaptain
Armitage. It called a number of
witnesses and examined them. I
cannot find that the tribunal :lskeo
these witnesses any question.
directed to the crucial
question, " Where did the
Jidiedema to Meduma path go
after it crossed the Agugu
River?"
I can not
escape the conclusion that the
tribunal based its judgment not
on the question of where this
path ran but where the parties
said that pillars had been
erected by surveyors subsequent
to the validated decision.
In my opinion
it has been affirmatively shown
that the finding of the native
tribunal was wrong.
I entirely
concur with the judgment that
has just been read by the Chief
Justice of Sierra Leone.
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA.
There are two
passages from recent judgments
of the Privy Council which I
regard as the guide to the
duties of this Court in
considering appeals which come
before it and to the duties of
the Court of the Chief
Commissioner in Ashanti and the
Courts of the Provincial
Commissioners in the Colony in
hearing appeals which come
before them from native
tribunals. In Abakah Nthah v.
A.nguah Bennieh (Privy
Council Appeal No. 165 of 1927)
Lord Atkin said:-
" By colonial
legislation all suits relating
to the owner" ship 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,"
and in
Kisiedu and Others v. Dompreh
and Others (Privy Council
Appeal No. 59 of 1936 (not yet
reported) Lord Russell of
Killowen said:-
" No doubt an
appeal in a case tried by a
Judge alone is " not governed by
the same rules which apply to an
appeal " after a trial and
verdict by a jury. It is a
rehearing. " Nevertheless before
an Appellate Court can properly
reverse " a finding of fact by a
trial Judge who has seen and
heard "the witnesses, and can
best judge not merely of their "
intention and desire to speak
the truth, but of their accuracy
" in fact, it must come to an
affirmative conclusion that the
" finding is wrong. There is a
presumption in favour of its "
correctness which must be
displaced. As Lon] Esher, M.R.
"said in Colonial Securdies
Trust Co. v. Massey (1896) "
1 Q.B. 38) , Where a case tried
by a Judge without a jury " ,
comes to the Court of Appeal,
the presumption is that the " ,
decision of the Court below on
facts was right., and that " ,
presumption must be displaced by
the appellant. their " Lordships
must, they think, apply the same
test and ask
*
Reported at 2 W.A.C.A. p. 1.
Now reported at 2 W.A.C.A, p.
281.
"themselves
whether in their opinion the
presumption in " favour of the
findings of the trial Judge has
been displaced j " and they feel
bound to answer this question in
the negative.
" In the present case it is
clear, I think, that the Acting
Assistant
Chief Commissioner, who heard
the appeal from the Asantehene's
"A" Court, did not follow the
guidance of the above
quotations. He had a plan of the
area concerning the dispute made
by a licensed surveyor and heard
evidence. This was perfectly
proper in order to enable the
questions in issue to be
understood. But having done this
he went further and proceeded to
form his own opinion upon the
merits of the case partly from
the evidence given in the native
tribunal and partly on that
given before him and to give
effect to that opinion, thus
constituting himself a Court of
first instance V1:ce the
native tribunal, 'instead of
confining himself to the two
questions-(l) 'Vas there
evidence upon which the native
tribunal could find as it did?
and (2) Had it been
affirmatively shown that the
finding of the native tribunal
was wrong?
As I conceive the duties of this
Court now they are to answer
these two questions and decide
the appeal accordingly, not to
seek to form an opinion which
view is the correct one, that of
the native tribunal or that of
the Chief Commissioner.
As to the first question it is
admitted by counsel for the
plaintiff-appellant-respondent
that the evidence 01 the two
witnesses Kyeame Akwasi Boaman
and Kofi Darkwa was in favour of
the
defendant-respondent-appellant.
This evidence, if believed as it
must have been, justified the
two findings" The Court .... "is
satisfied that the defendant has
not encroached upon the "
boundary demarcated between
Adansi and Bekwai since August "
I909 by Sir Armitage" and The
balance of evidence is in "
favour of the defendant.
" In my opinion, therefore, this
question must be answered in the
affirmative.
As to the second question
in disputes of this nature it is
nearly always impossible to say
that one party or the other has
conclusively proved his case, it
usua11,v must remain to the end
a matter ·of opinion one way or
the other. and this ease is, I
think. no exception to the rule.
I concede that the balance of
probability is in favour of the
view taken by the Chief
Commissioner's Court being
correct, especially having
regard to the question of the
footpath from Gyeduagyima (Jidiedema)
to Meduma, although it must not
be forgotten that in this
country foot-paths have a hahit
of changing their location over
a period of thirty years.
However this may be, I feel it
quite impossible to -come to an
affirmative conclusion that the
finding of the native tribunal
was wrong.
:For these reasons, I am of
opinion that the appeal should
be followed, the judgment of the
Chief Commissioner's Court set
aside, and the judgment of the
native' tribunal restored.
The following
Order was made:-
KINGDON, P.
The appeal is
dismissed with costs assessed at
£39 8s. 6d.'rhe judgment of the
Court of the Chief Commissiol1er
is upheld with the addition of
an order that the plaintiff is
entitled to a declaration that
the boundary between the parties
follows the yellow line in the
map marked Exhibit" D " in the
appeal before the Chief
Commissioner's' Court.