Appeal
Court.4
May, 1936
Appeal from Provincial
Commissioner exercising
Appellate Jurisdiction.
Trespass-Disputed
boundary-Appeal from Paramount
Chief's Tribunal to Provincial
Commissioner-Leave must first be
sought from Tribunal-When leave
granted by Tribunal conditions
may be laid down by Provincial
Commissioner's Court-In appeals
from decisions of native
Tribunals concerning ownership
of land, Court should not
disturb them without very clear
proof that they are
wrong-Proceedings a nullity
because certain members who gave
judgment in Tribunal were not
present during the whole of the
proceedings.
Held: Appeal allowed. Case to be
reheard
de novo
by Tribunal.
The facts of this case are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment.
R.
S. Blay
for Appellant.
C.
F. Hayfron-Benjamin
for Respondent.
The following judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA.
In this case the plaintiff took
action in the Tribunal of the
Paramount Chief of Gomoa Assin
against the defendant. He
succeeded, but the defendant
appealed to the Court of the
Provincial Commissioner of the
Central Province, which allowed
the appeal, and the plaintiff
now appeals against that
decision to this Court.
The case as it reached the
Provincial Commissioner's Court
is explained thus by the
Provincial Commissioner in his
judgment :-
The claim before the Tribunal as
amended reads :-
" The plaintiff seeks Tribunal
relief for defendant to assign
reason for having trespassed by
placing people on plaintiff's
family land, i.e. to farm on the
said land which land situating
and lying at Gomoa Adzintem in
the District of Winnebah and
which land is bounded on the
north by Budu's land on the
south by Kwasi Taa's land on the
east by Kwamin Mensa or Kojo
Andorful's land and on the west
by Kwa Adufrachi's land
respectively.
"2. That plaintiff seeks further
relief for the defendant to
produce before this Tribunal all
documents and papers if any,
purported to have been signed
marked or witnessed by plaintiff
or his ancestor as deed of gift
or otherwise to defendant or his
ancestors relating to' APASEM '
land in dispute.
" It is difficult to understand
the meaning to the second part
of the claim, and this was
ignored by the Tribunal in the
judgment except in so far as
the reference therein to APASEM
land. which is stated to be the
land in dispute. The land set
out in the. first part of the
claim is not the land in dispute
but is presumably all the land
claimed by plaintiff.
" Although the original action
was one for trespass it is clear
that both parties and the
Tribunal regarded the case as
one of a disputed boundary,
since no evidence has been
called as regards the alleged
trespass, and the judgment of
the Tribunal was as regards
boundaries rather than as
regards the alleged trespass.
"The Tribunal gave judgment for
the plaintiff on the grounds
that 'almost all the lands
covering
P ANFUKROM VILLAGE,' was given
to Barima Panfu by 'Barima Odoom,'
ancestor of Nana ' Essell Tawia,
the plaintiff herein.'
" The Tribunal further went on
to lay down as the boundary
between the parties' the main
street from Adzintem to Winneba
passing through the middle of
Panfukrom Village,' and further
ordered that the land on the
left (Le. the east) of this road
should belong to plaintiff and
that the chief of Panfukrom is
the custodian of this land on
the left, but for how far the
Tribunal does not say."
Before the Provincial
Commissioner the grounds of
appeal were: (1) Estoppel; (2)
Judgment against the weight of
evidence; (3) Judgment contrary
to law and equity. The
Provincial Commissioner after
hearing argument overruled the
submission as to estoppel, but
upheld the submission that the
judgment was against the weight
of evidence; and so without
discussing the third ground
(which in any case is too vague
to be of any value) allowed the
appeal.
On appeal to this Court, two
principal grounds were put
forward on behalf of the
appellant, viz. : (1) that the
Court (i.e. the Court of the
Provincial Commissioner) had no
jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal, the appeal not having
been properly brought before it,
and (2) that the Provincial
Commissioner ought not to have
reversed the finding of the
Tribunal on the facts. As to the
first point the contention was
that there had been no
compliance with paragraph 77 (1)
of the Native Administration
Ordinance (Cap. 111), which
reads as follows :-
" A party desiring to appeal
from a Paramount Chief's
Tribunal shall first obtain the
leave of such Tribunal so to do
; provided that, if the said
Tribunal shall have refused such
leave, the Provincial
Commissioner's Court or a
Magistrate's Court constituted
by the District Commissioner may
nevertheless grant leave to
appeal," and consequently the
Provincial Commissioner's Court
lacked jurisdiction. I agree
that if section 77 (1) was not
complied with, the Provincial
Commissioner had no
jurisdiction. But in this case
the
defendant-appellant-respondent
followed what appears to have
been the usual practice, i.e. he
went to the Tribunal on a motion
for conditional leave to appeal
and on that motion the Tribunal
made the following order :-:-
" The Tribunal orders that in
accordance with the provisions
of section 77 (1) and (2) of the
Native Administration Ordinance
as amended, the appeal as prayed
for by the defendant-appellant
is hereby granted accordingly.
" Execution stayed."
Thereupon the
defendant-appellant-respondent
made a redundant application to
the Provincial Commissioner's
Court for conditional leave to
appeal whereby he got the
conditions laid down. He duly
complied with the conditions and
then got final leave to appeal
from the Provincial
Commissioner's Court.
The question is whether the
order made by the Tribunal in
the terms quoted above
constitutes compliance with
section 77 (1) of Chapter 111. I
am of the opinion that it does.
It is abundantly clear that all
concerned,
defendant-appellant-respondent,
the Tribunal and the Provincial
Commissioner intended it for
such compliance and regarded it
as complying. It is reasonable
that once the Tribunal has
granted leave the formalities as
to conditions and compliance
therewith should be controlled
by the Provincial Commissioner.
This ground of appeal
accordingly fails.
As to the second ground, the
appellant's Counsel very aptly
drew attention to the following
passage from the judgment of
Lord Atkin in the Privy Council
in the case of
Abakah Nthah v. Anguah Bennieh
(not yet reported)· :-
" 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 quotation clearly lays down
the duty of a Provincial
Commissioner's Court on appeals
from native tribunals in land
cases and should be carefully
observed in all Provincial
Commissioner's Courts.
It is unnecessary for me now to
go in detail into the merits of
the case on the facts, owing to
the submission which the
defendant-
appellant-respondent's Counsel
made to the Court at the last
moment when he realised that he
had little hope of successfully
resisting the
plaintiff-respondent-appellant's
contention that the Provincial
Commissioner ought not to have
reversed the Tribunal on
the facts.
(* Note: now reported in 2
W.A.C.A., p. 1).
This was to the effect that the
whole proceedings before the
c.]. Tribunal were a nullity,
because all the members who sat
upon the case and gave judgment
were not present throughout the
hearing. I am reluctantly
compelled to uphold this
contention. In two recent cases,
viz.
W. A. Hanson v. Mary A. Ashun
and
Kojo Twerebu
for
himself and other members of
Akonna family of Akitakyi v.
Kobina Baa
(not yet reported) this Court
has upheld a similar contention.
In the present case it is clear
that at least two of the
Tribunal members who gave
judgment were not present
throughout the proceedings, and
did not hear all the evidence.
This vitiates the whole trial,
and in my opinion this Court has
no option but to declare the
whole proceedings before the
Tribunal and the Provincial
Commissioner's Court a nullity,
and to direct that the case be
heard
de novo
in the Tribunal.
As to costs, the
plaintiff-respondent-appellant
having succeeded in this Court,
although upon a point taken by
the defendant
appellant-respondent, is
entitled to his costs in this
Court, and since the
defendant-appellant-respondent
never took in the Provincial
Commissioner's Court the point
he has now taken, I am of
opinion that the
plaintiff-respondent-appellant
should get his costs in the
Provincial Commissioner's Court
also. The costs in the Tribunal
both of the first abortive trial
and of the new trial should
abide the ultimate issue ..
PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST.
I concur.
WEBBER, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
I concur.
The following Order was made
:-
The appeal is allowed and the
judgments of the Court below and
of the native Tribunal are set
aside and the case is referred
back for retrial by the Tribunal
of the Paramount Chief of Gomoa
Assin. The appellant is awarded
costs in this Court assessed at
£82 12s. and in the Court below
to be taxed. The costs to date
in the native Tribunal are to
abide the ultimate Issue.