Appeal Court
24th Feb.1940. Appeal from
decision of Chief Commissioner's
Court.
Claim to establish right of
ownership-Test as laid down in
Kodwo Nkoom v. Kwamin Etsiaku
(1922) F.C. followed and
Appeal dismissed.
Held: The
fact that the defendant has
spent money on improvement of
the land is not sufficient to
cause the plaintiff to be
estopped from setting up his
claim to ownership, unless the
expense has been incurred as a
result of the belief that
defendant was the owner. Such
belief can only be inferred from
all the circumstances which are
not sufficiently conclusive here
and the defendant has
consequently failed to establish
it.
The facts are
sufficiently set out in the
judgment.
A. G.
Heward-1vlills .for
Appellant. T. Hutton-Mills
for Respondent.
The following
joint judgment was delivered :-
KINGDON, C.J.,
NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD
COAST AND BANNERMAN, J.
This is the
second time that this case has
come up on appeal before the
West African Court of Appeal. On
the previous occasion the facts
were set out by the Court and so
there is no need to recapitulate
them now. Upon the hearing of
the previous appeal the Court,
after quoting from the judgment
of Smyly, C.J. in the case of
Kodwo Nkoom v. Kwamin Etsiaklt
(1922) F.e. '22 p. 1 at p.
5, said ;-
•. We think
that in the present case a.
similar test should be applied
and that, if the Defendant can
show that during his 200 years'
occupation he has been led to
regard the land as his and has
spent money in improving it or
in defending his rights to it,
then the Plaintiff should now be
estopped from setting up his
claim of ownership, but if the
Defendant cannot show this then
the Plaintiff is entitled to his
declaration. But there is not
sufficient data before us to
enable US to apply the test
since the point was not raised
in the Courts below and the only
evidence tendered by the
Defendant bearing on the
question was rejected in the
Asantehene's Court •. A "."
and then
remitted the case to the Court
of the Chief Commissioner to
allow each party to call
evidence relevant to the test
indicated and to give judgment
accordingly. After taking the
necessary evidence, the
Assistant Chief Commissioner
presiding over the Chief
Commissioner's Court was "
unable to find that the
application of the Native
Customary Law in this case would
be contrary to the principles of
equity in accordance with the
test prescribed", and gave
judgment for the Plaintiff with
costs. Against that judgment the
Defendant now appeals.
It will be
recalled that the Plaintiff in
this case, is not claiming to
recover possession of or to oust
the Defendant from, the land,
but merely to assert his
ultimate right of ownership, and
further that it is not disputed
that Defendant was originally
put on the land by the
Plaintiff. The native custom in
such a case is clear and
undoubted, namely that the
ultimate ownership remains in
the original owner for all time.
The only question is whether in
this case the Plaintiff should
be estopped from asserting that
ownership owing to the Defendant
having been led during his 200
years' occupation to regard the
land as his and so to spend
money in improving it and
defending his rights to it. The
evidence upon which the
Defendant relied to establish
such estoppel falls into two
categories. First the Defendant
alleges that he has incurred
litigation expenses in four
cases in defending his rights to
the land. The Assistant Chief
Commissioner gave careful"
consideration to each of these
four cases and was" unable to
find that the Defendant has
proved that any expense has been
incurred in defence of his title
to the land now in dispute." We
have given full consideration to
the arguments adduced by
Appellant's Counsel in his
attempt to displace this
finding, but see no good reason
to reverse the Assistant Chief
Commissioner's finding of fact
upon this point.
Secondly the
Defendant alleges that he has
spent money in improving the
land, in that he has constructed
a motor road to Buoyem. Upon
this the Assistant Chief
Commissioner found
" Such
expenditure may legitimately be
regarded as having been incurred
in improving the value of the
land, but since the road was
constructed entirely for the
benefit of the people occupying
the land it cannot be claimed
that it Was the landlord's
responsibility, or that the
Defendant incurred this expense
as a result of his belief that
he was the owner of the land."
As to this
finding, whilst we agree with
Appellant's Counsel that the
reference to "landlord's
responsibility" is out of place,
since no question of landlord
and tenant or landlord and
caretaker arises, we also find
ourselves after anxious thought,
in agreement with the view that
it cannot be said that the
Defendant incurred this expense
as a result of the belief that
he was the owner of the land.
Actual proof or disproof of the
existence of such a belief would
be almost an impossibility. All
that can be done is to attempt
to draw the correct inference
from all the circumstances. Here
apart from the question of
ownership there was the other
obvious incentive to build the
road namely that it facilitates
the marketing of the occupier's
produce. Further the native
custom as to the resting place
of the ultimate ownership would
be well known to the Defendant
and his people, but they could
not be expected to rely on the
English doctrine of estoppel to
defeat the undisputed ownership
of the Plaintiff. According to
Jlative ideas there would be no
question of the ultimate
ownership in the land having
passed.
For these
reasons the appeal is dismissed
with costs assessed at £18 3s.