Consolidated
Appeals from Deputy
Commissioner.
Ejectment, possession and
declaration of title-Alienation
of family land without consent
only voidable-Reopening at
instance of family must be
timely
so that purchaser may be
restored to his former
position-Onus on Plaintiff to
prove title.
Held: Both appeals dismissed.
The facts are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
K. A. Korsah
for Appellants in first case and
Respondents in second.
C.
F. Hayfron-Benjamin
for Respondents in first case
and Appellants in second.
The following judgment was
delivered :PETRIDES, C.J ..
GOLD COAST.
This is an appeal and a
cross-appeal from a judgment of
the Acting Deputy Commissioner,
Central Province, given by him
after he had retried two
separate actions originally
tried by the Tribunal of the
Paramount Chief of Gomoa Assin.
In the action against Bonso and
others the plaintiffs' claim was
for" ejectment, or ownership or
possession" of a piece of land
with a two-storey house which
the plaintiff alleged was .. the
property of the late Kojo
Botsio's family, which said
ownership of the said property
was confirmed by a judgment of
the Supreme Court, Accra, dated
the 8th October, 1885, in the
case of
Coffie Patsie v. Boatoe and two
others
and for £100 damages.
The Deputy Commissioner found
that the land on which the
two-storey house was built
belonged to Botsio and his
family. Although the land was
family property, Botsio
(described as Cudjoe Buatoe in
the Deed) purported to sell it
with the house thereon to Cudjoe
Buatoe Bentil as evidenced by a
Deed dated the 30th December,
1885. The Deputy Commissioner
found that this sale was valid,
and that even if the family had
not given prior consent, they
subsequently acquiesced in the
sale by allowing Bentil and his
successors in title to occupy
the house rent free from the
year 1885 until the present time
without protest.
Appellants' Counsel contended at
length that this Deed was a
forgery, but entirely failed to
satisfy us that such was the
case.
He then contended that the
alleged sale of 1885 by Botsio
to Bentil was absolutely void as
Botsio could not sell the land
as it was family property, and
that the Deputy Commissioner was
wrong in holding that the family
had acquiesced in the sale by
allowing Bentil and his
successors in title to occupy
the house rent free from the
year 1885 until the present time
without protest. He contended
that the family could not have
acquiesced in the sale as they
knew nothing abo'lt it at the
time and never saw the Deed of
sale. He pointed out that as
Bentil had married Botsio's
niece he was entitled to live in
the house. We think that this
contention is right, and that in
consequence the fact that Bentil
and those who inherited from
him paid no rent is no evidence
that the family acquiesced in
the sale of the property to
Bentil.
In 1914 the house was sold by
Essie Gyan, who inherited
indirectly from Bentil, to H.
E. Thompson as evidenced by
Exhibit .. D." When Thompson
died Okwesi succeeded to the
property and sold it to Kwa
Baubin, who died and was
succeeded by Kofi Acquah, who
placed the defendants in
possession as caretakers.
It appears from the evidence
that from 1914 up to date the
upper storey of the house was
occupied by persons like
Thompson who had no right to be
there unless there had been a
sale in 1885. The presence of
these people from 1914 to date
is only intelligible upon the
footing of title as in the
ordinary course of events
strangers do not live in other
people's houses. On the other
hand until 1933 the ground floor
was occupied by the plaintiff's
family.
In the case of
Quassie Bayaidie v. Kwamina
Mensah
(F.C.L. 150) the Full Court had
to consider what was the effect
of a sale by family land by
occupant of a stool. That Court
in the course of its judgment
stated:-
.. Now although it may be, and
we believe it is, the law that
the concurrence of the members
of the family ought to be given
in order to constitute an
unimpeachable sale of family
land, the sale is not in itself
void, but is capable of being
opened up at the instance of the
family, provided they avail
themselves of their right
timeously and under
circumstances in which, upon the
rescinding of the bargain, the
purchaser can be fully restored
to the position in which he
stood before the sale."
If this judgment is sound, and
the contrary is not suggested by
appellants' Counsel, then it
appears clear that the sale of
1885 was not void, but merely
voidable and the plaintiffs
having taken no steps to set it
aside have no title to the land
in dispute.
The burden of proof in an action
such as this for ejectment,
possession and a declaration of
title clearly lies on the
plaintiff, and as it has been
shown that Kofi Acquah has a
title to the land, even though
it may be a defeasible one, his
caretakers cannot be ejected or
a title granted to the
plaintiffs in respect of this
land while Kofi Acquah's title
subsists.
The plaintiffs' appeal must
therefore be dismissed.
As to the cross-appeal, we think
that the Deputy Commissioner's
decision was right and we
dismiss that appeal.
KINGDON, c.J., NIGERIA.
I concur.
WEBBER, c.J., SIERRA LEONE. r
concur.