|
Land –
Stool Lands - Demarcation -
Boundaries - Order for
explanation - Judgment of Court
- Supreme Court Site Plan –
Encroachment -
HEADNOTES
That
in respect of the suit in
respect of which the Applicants,
and the 2nd
Claimants/ Respondents/
Respondents, hereafter
Respondent had been engaged in,
reference Suit No. J4/38/2011,
the Respondents herein were
adjudged the victorious party on
29/11/2017. The Applicant
further deposed that, in the
course of the trial, the land in
dispute was captured in the map
and described as “plan of land
in dispute shaded yellow,
supposed to be the property of
the Pitiko or Abetifi Stool” the
Respondents herein have resorted
to encroaching on the land which
has previously been in the
exclusive possession of the
Applicant. As a result of
the said “Supreme Court
Map” it was deposed to that the
Respondents had started
alienating land which had been
under the control of the
Applicant stool It was
basically upon the above stated
facts that the Applicants prayed
this court in the interest of
justice and to avoid further
litigation, that a Government
Surveyor be appointed to
demarcate carefully the
boundaries of the parties.
HELD
There is absolutely no doubt,
that the Supreme Court, by their
unanimous decision referred to
supra, dismissed the appeal of
the Applicants herein against
the decision of the Appeals
Tribunal dated 16th
June 1993.
What this therefore
means is that, the variation by
the Appeals Tribunal of the
decision of the Commissioner of
the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission, dated 25th
January 1991 still stands and is
thus valid and enforceable. This
is because, even though there
was not much clarity in the
rendition of the Supreme Court,
the statement “In the
circumstances, we find no merit
in the appeal and we dismiss
same speaks volume.”
That, since the
appeal fails the orders and
decisions of the Appeals
Tribunal of 16th
January, 1993 still stands
STATUTES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323.
Court of Appeal Rules (Supreme
Court Rules, 1962) L.I. 218
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
BOOKS REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
DELIVERING THE LEADING JUDGMENT
DOTSE, JSC:-
COUNSEL
NII BI AYI BONTE FOR THE 1ST
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.
CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR THE 2ND
CLAIMANT/ RESPONDENT/ REPONDENT/
RESPONDENT.
DOTSE, JSC:-
This ruling has been triggered
by the application filed on the
7th of May 2019, by
learned Counsel for the 1st
Claimant/Appellant/Appellant/Applicant,
hereafter Applicant, “praying
for an
order to explain the
demarcation of the land
belonging to the parties in
accordance with the
Judgment
delivered on 29th
November 2017 upon the grounds
set out in the accompanying
affidavit.”
In an affidavit sworn to on
behalf of the Applicant’s herein
by Nana Boateng Pitikohene, he
deposed to as follows:-
1.
That in respect of the suit in
respect of which the Applicants,
and the 2nd
Claimants/Respondents/Respondents,
hereafter Respondent had been
engaged in, reference Suit No.
J4/38/2011, the Respondents
herein were adjudged the
victorious party on 29/11/2017.
2.
Following the delivery of the
said judgment, learned counsel
for the Respondent stool filed
an entry of judgment dated 20th
April 2018 together with a site
plan which the counsel for the
Respondent described as “Supreme
Court Site Plan”.
3.
The Applicant further deposed
that, in the course of the
trial, the land in dispute was
captured in the map and
described as “plan of land
in dispute shaded yellow,
supposed to be the property of
the Pitiko or Abetifi Stool”
4.
It was further deposed to that,
following the service of the
said site plan,
the
Respondents herein have resorted
to encroaching on the land which
has previously been in the
exclusive possession of the
Applicant.
5.
As a result of the said
“Supreme Court Map” it was
deposed to that the Respondents
had started alienating land
which had been under the control
of the Applicant stool.
It was basically upon the above
stated facts that the Applicants
prayed this court in the
interest of justice and to avoid
further litigation, that a
Government Surveyor be appointed
to demarcate carefully the
boundaries of the parties.
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION
Despite an affidavit in
opposition, sworn to by Nana
Asiedu Agyeman III of
Abetifi-Kwahu, on behalf of the
Respondents, which opposed the
said application in very
unsavoury language, which was
frowned upon by the court, this
court on the 11th day
of May 2019 granted the
application in the following
terms.:-
“After listening to the parties,
we order that the Regional
Surveyor of the Eastern Region
to prepare the notice to draw
the judgment plan based on the
decision of the Stool Lands
Boundaries settlement which
decision was confirmed by the
Supreme Court. The parties are
to come back for further
description and plan to be
admitted.”
It must be noted that, the court
was then constituted as follows
coram: Ansah JSC (Presiding),
Dotse, Marful-Sau, Dordzie (Mrs)
and Amegatcher JJSC’s.
Following the making of the
order referred to supra, one
Robert Hackman Antwi, Regional
Surveyor for the Eastern Region
in the office of the Survey and
Mapping Division of the Lands
Commission in Koforidua was the
official who satisfied the
description contained in the
order made on 11/06/2019 and
accordingly executed the order
of the Court.
In this court, we have also
noted that, two plans have been
produced and filed in the
Registry of the Court with
copies made available to the
parties, their Counsel and the
Court.
In order to understand the
preparation of two different
plans and also to further
attempt to resolve the
fundamental question raised by
the Applicants herein that the
Respondents had
encroached upon their land
and added it to their land, this
court on the 22nd day
of April 2020 took evidence from
the said Robert Hackman Antwi,
hereafter referred to as Court
witness 1 (C.W.1).
The panel for the court has at
that material time been changed
by order of the Chief Justice to
Dotse JSC presiding,
Marful-sau, Dordzie (Mrs)
Amegatcher and Lovelace-Johnson
(Ms) JJSC’s.
EVIDENCE OF C.W.I ON 22/04/2020
The evidence of CW1 has been
very explanatory and has indeed
added a lot of understanding to
the issues germane in this case.
We shall therefore produce in
extenso the said evidence in
context as follows:-
a.
He confirmed that he was
appointed by order of this court
dated 11th June 2019
already referred to supra. By
the said order, he was requested
to draw a plan of the land in
respect of the dispute between
the claimants showing the
Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission decision that was
affirmed by the Supreme Court.
b.
As a result of the order, he
invited the parties to his
office. At that meeting, he
informed them about the
procedures to be adopted in
executing the orders of the
court. This consisted of the
payment of his fees and the
documents they have to make
available to him to empower and
enable him execute his mandate.
c.
He indicated that the decision
of the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission came with
a plan. This will be referred to
in extenso shortly during this
delivery. CWI also had the
benefit of the Stool Lands
Boundaries Settlement Appeal
Tribunal decision, which will
also be profusely referred to
during this rendition.
d.
According to the witness, the
understanding he got from these
two documents was that, the
Appeals Tribunal varied the
original decision of the Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission and all these
information were contained in
the plans attached to the
judgments.
e.
According to C.W.I, he had a
little challenge in executing
the order of this court. This
lay in the fact that the order
of the court referred to the
decision of the Stool Lands
Boundary Settlement Commission
and not the Appellate Tribunal’s
decision.
f.
However, C.W.1 explained that,
taking into consideration the
fact that an Appellate court
decision is superior to a trial
court decision which the Stool
Lands Boundary Settlement
Commission was, he decided to
prepare two plans, one plan
indicating the extent of land
adjudged to belong to each
claimant under the trial Stool
Lands Boundary Settlement
Commission and another Plan
showing the land that had been
denoted or allotted to the
claimants under the Appellate
Tribunal decision.
g.
As a result, C.W.1 tendered the
following documents without
objection.
i. Exhibit CW2 – This
is the Plan of the lands for the
claimants based on the decision
of the Stool Lands Boundary
Settlement Commission
ii. Exhibit CW3 – This
is the plan of the land
delineating portions of the land
to the claimants based on the
Appellate Tribunal decision.
iii. Exhibit A – Decision
of the Appellate Tribunal of the
Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission dated 16th
June 1993 which was also
tendered without any objection.
iv. Exhibit B – This is
the decision of the trial Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission dated 25th
January, 1991 which was also
tendered without any objection.
h. C.W.1 further
explained to this court that, he
accepted the two judgments
because both parties involved
confirmed the existence of both
the trial stool lands and the
appellate Tribunal decisions. He
also indicated that the plan
also had the boundaries of the
portions of land adjudged to
each claimant in the two
judgments clearly delineated on
the plan.
Even though C.W.1 stated that
whilst Exhibit A, had a
certified stamp mark on it, that
contained in Exhibit B had no
such certification mark. He
stated however that both parties
confirmed the existence of the
said two judgments. It is to be
noted also that, learned counsel
for the Applicant, Nii Bi
Ayibonte, who raised this issue
during cross-examination of the
C.W.1 did not press the issue.
In any case, as a court, in the
absence of any evidence to the
contrary, we accept both
exhibits A and B as authentic
official documents emanating
from proper sources and had been
admitted and confirmed by the
Applicants. See Section 137 of
the
Evidence Act, 1975, NRCD 323.
In answer to a question, C.W.1
emphasised the fact that, he
understood the remit of the
order of this court to mean that
he should base the plan on
Exhibit A, and this exhibit A is
the decision of the Appellate
Tribunal. This is because an
Appellate court decision always
supersedes a trial court
decision.
We will now consider the
contents of Exhibits B and later
A in order to put them in
context in our understanding of
Exhibits C.W.2 and C.W.3 the
Plans that were drawn based on
the two judgments respectively.
WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE
“TRIAL” STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CONTAINED
IN EXHIBIT B AND DATED 25TH
JANUARY 1991?
Commissioner J.A Osei (as he
then was) presiding over the
Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission on 25th
January 1991 rendered a detailed
decision setting out the reasons
for the said delivery. In our
attempt to bring finality to the
instant dispute and also attain
a very high degree of clarity of
thought and understanding, we
will set out in some detailed
context, the reasons for the
renditions in both Exhibits A
and B.
In respect of the delivery in
Exhibit B, it was stated in part
by Hon. Commissioner J.A Osei
(as he then was) as follows:-
“I have fully considered the
evidence on both sides claiming
village and/or farms in the area
in dispute. I have also
considered the need for
permanent natural boundary
features and now make the
following findings on the
totality of the evidence:
1.
That the traditional evidence on
record for both sides is
unreliable for the purpose of
determining the issues of
ownership of the land in
dispute.
2.
That Pitiko stool does not share
common boundary with Kumawu
stool.
3.
That Pitiko stool does not share
common boundary with Bukuruwa.
4.
That Pitiko stool rather shares
common boundary with Abetifi
stool.
5.
That Obosom river is a boundary
feature between Kumawu stool and
Abetifi stool.
6.
That Dede stream is a boundary
feature between Abetifi and
Bukuruwa stool lands
7.
That Abetifi has persistently
been claiming lands beyond the
Regional boundary and was the
party that claimed the lands up
to Sone river in 1906 or
thereabout.
All things considered, the
boundary between the two stools,
namely Pitiko and Abetifi is,
and shall be as follows:
“It shall commence from the
point where the old Krachi
footpath touches the lake, and
shall follow this old footpath
to a point one mile to Bonkurom
village, then it shall turn
north-eastwards to hit Kotwi
rocks. From these rocks, the
boundary shall turn
south-eastwards thus touching
Teteibuo rocks crossing river
Apapasu to hit Bawhim rocks;
then it shall continue straight
to Abuotia rocks. From there the
boundary shall turn
north-eastwards to the Kyirebuo
Rocks. Thence the boundary shall
cross the footpath between
Dunkra village and Kwaikesi
village to the source of
Abribiwasu river. Then it shall
turn south-eastwards to the
source of river Abadoboma. From
there the boundary shall
continue same south-eastwards to
cross river Atonsu-Adentom and
thence it shall turn eastwards
to hit another tributary of the
same river (Atonsu-Adentem) at a
point one mile to Obomeng
village. From here, the boundary
shall turn southwards to hit
point (23) twenty-three of the
Southern boundary near an
unnamed village on Exhibit A
(the plan).
All lands to the south of the
boundary line as herein defined
shall be Pitiko Stool land and
all lands on the other side
thereof up to the Afram river on
the west, the Regional boundary
on the north-west, river Obosom
on the north, and the Dede river
on the east shall be Abetifi
stool land.” Emphasis
It must also be emphasized that,
at the end of the delivery of
this decision, Commissioner J.
A. Osei concluded by ordering
one Licensed Surveyor of Accra,
Mr. Okoi Lartey to carry out the
physical demarcation of the
boundary lines as defined in the
judgment on the land in dispute
and thereafter prepare a plan
showing the features and the
demarcations mentioned therein
within a period of 3 months from
the date of judgment which was
25th January 1991.
The trial Commissioner also
directed the said Surveyor to
erect concrete pillars along
the boundary lines except where
the boundary runs into a stream
or a river, in which case the
same stream or river shall be
the natural feature of the
boundary features.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DECISION
As has been noted supra, the
Applicants herein appealed
against the decision of the
trial Stool Lands Settlement
Commission to the Appellate
Tribunal. This is the judgment
tendered as Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT A
On the 16th June
1993, the Appellate Tribunal of
the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission in a
unanimous decision Coram:
Amuah J. A. (Presiding) Sotomey
and Olaga (JJT) dismissed
the appeal lodged by the
Applicants herein. Amuah J. A
and Olaga J.T. in separate
opinions dismissed the appeal
whereas Sotomey J. T. concurred
in the decision of his brothers
mentioned supra.
As indicated supra, because of
our resolve to bring clarity,
finality and real understanding
to the issues raised herein, we
will set out in detail the
reasoning of Olaga J. T, and
later that of Amuah J. A as
follows:-
“Olaga, J.T. This an appeal by
the 1st Claimant,
Pitiko Stool, from the decision
of the Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission presided
over by Mr. J. A. Osei, the
Settlement Commissioner
delivered in Accra on the 25th
day of January 1991.
By this findings “all land to
the South of the boundary line
as defined (in the judgment)
shall be Pitiko Stool Land and
all land on the other side
thereof up to the Afram river on
the West, the Regional boundary
on the North-West, river Obosom
on the North, and Dede river on
the east shall be Abetifi Stool
Land.”
After stating the above, Olaga
J.T then profusely referred to
the grounds of appeal argued by
Mr. Adumua-Bossman, learned
Counsel (of blessed memory) for
the Appellants therein, herein
Applicants as follows:
Grounds of appeal argued by the
Pitiko Stool before the appeals
Tribunal for and on their behalf
by Mr. Adumua-Bossman
“Eight grounds of Appeal and
three additional grounds were
filed and accepted by the
Tribunal. They can be summed up
as follows:-
1.
The Learned Commissioner
misdirected himself by ignoring
historic research writings,
established works, post graduate
thesis, and evidence of an
expert witness.
2.
The Learned Commissioner failed
to treat the evidence of 2nd
witness for Pitiko, Nana Osei
Bediako Firaw, as traditional
evidence.
3.
The learned Commissioner failed
to apply the principle of
established modern facts given
in evidence by Pitiko.
4.
The omnibus ground that the
judgment is against the weight
of evidence.
5.
I wish to add two issues which
are pertinent to be stated or
spelt out. They are
a.
Whether or not Abetifi took part
in the Ataala Firan war.
b.
Whether or not Pitiko and
Abetifi share boundary with
Bukuruwa.”
After referring to the grounds
of appeal argued before them,
Olaga J.T. proffered the
following reasons for his
decision to dismiss the appeal
of the Applicants herein.
“I am left to agree or disagree
with the learned Commissioner on
whether or not Pitiko forms
boundary with Bukuruwa. The
evidence of the 3rd
witness for Abetifi, Emmanuel
Obeng Marfo, Chief of Somusei
under Bukuruwa admits that Dede
stream is boundary feature
between Bukuruwa and Abetifi but
he denies it in request of
Pitiko. There was only a feeble
attempt to challenge this
witness. Pitiko did not call any
one from Bukuruwa on this issue.
I agree with the Learned
Commissioner’s conclusion.
Of the two stools Abetifi stool
is the Adonten of the Kwahu
Traditional area next in rank to
the Omanhene; Pitiko Stool is a
subordinate stool under the
Nifahene of Obo and serves
through Asakraka, Bepong and
Obomeng. Simply put, Abetifi is
superior and higher in status
while Pitiko is lower in the
Kwahu Traditional set up. It is
therefore obvious as contended
by Mr. Enock D. Kom on behalf of
Abetifi that the superior stool
is likely to have more land
attached to its stool than the
subordinate stool with the same
traditional area.
The facts weigh against Pitiko
and the appeal must fail.
Although the Abetifi stool has
by notice filed on 11/2/1993
asked for variation of the
Southern boundary of the land
adjudged for the stool by the
Learned Commissioner it was not
argued by counsel. It is in
respect of the boundary in the
south from point P4/A2 in the
South-West to point P3/A1 in the
South-East.
By Rule 32 of the
Court of
Appeal Rules (Supreme Court
Rules, 1962) L.I. 218 the
Tribunal has the power to give
any judgment “and may also
exercise the power in favour or
all or any of the respondents or
parties, although such
respondents or parties may not
have appealed from or complained
of the decision.”
In order to invoke and exercise
the powers conferred by the said
Rule 32 the Tribunal invited
Counsel to Address it on the
Southern boundary altered by the
Learned Commissioner. Both
counsel agreed to submit written
addresses which they did.
Boundaries with Abetifi on its
northern boundary, instead it
says it has boundary with
Kumawu. The Learned Commissioner
has found that Abetifi is the
Southern neighbor of Kumawu and
the northern neighbor of Pitiko.
He has however carved out land
measuring between one mile to
about 10 miles in width
stretching from the old
Atabubu-Krachi foot path across
almost the entire land in
dispute to only a few miles from
the eastern boundary for Pitiko.
It looks like an attempt to
share the disputed area between
the contestants giving, in my
estimation, about one-third to
Pitiko.
The reasons for rejecting the
boundary claimed by Abetifi are
that there are no natural
features and the trees on the
boundary were between 10 and 12
years old; further that Abetifi
had difficulty in demarcating
the boundary and that the
features given by Nana Kwabena
Dede were not shown to the
Surveyor on the field and that
the Tampori fetish belongs to
Pitiko. The cross-examination of
the Surveyor by counsel for
Abetifi negate the Learned
Commissioner’s reasoning.
Except that there was no
evidence to explain the age of
the boundary trees which
according to the evidence, were
up to 20 years and not 12 years
as the Learned Commissioner put
it, there is sufficient evidence
to answer the Learned
Commissioner’s reasons for
rejecting Abetifi’s Southern
boundary. As to Nana Kwabena
Dede’s features they are the
village which, it is asserted,
Pitiko subjects were allowed to
establish and it was their
adverse claim which invoked the
Oath and which precipitated the
inquiry; the same would apply to
the Tampori.
The absence of natural features
cannot be used in favour of
Pitiko who has forfeited its
right to any claim along that
boundary since they say they
have no common boundary with
Abetifi. That apart the boundary
could be drawn in a straight
line without being tied to any
natural feature as in the case
of the straight line boundary
drawn by Commissioner F. C.
Fuller between Ashanti and Gold
Coast colony as appears in the
plans exhibited in this case.
For the above reasons I do not
agree with the Learned
Commissioner for slashing that
large portion of land he has
found to be vested in Abetifi.”
After setting out the reasons
and analyzing same why some of
the conclusions on the
boundaries drawn and set out by
the trial Stool Lands Boundaries
Commissioner had to be varied,
he concluded same as follows:-
“If the learned Commissioner is
right in fixing the boundary
using rocks as natural features
one would ask why he has not
used the Tampori rocks and
another rock east of Boten; both
are located south of the rocks
preferred and purported to have
been used by the Learned
Commissioner as natural
features.
Pitiko cannot be said to be in
possession of the land the
learned Commissioner has slashed
from what would have been part
of Abetifi land. Indeed the area
is predominantly occupied by
Abetifi.
By virtue of the said Rule 32 of
L.I. 218 I vary the boundary
for Abetifi to coincide with the
boundary marked on the
preliminary plan from P4/A2 in
the south west along the dotted
line with the trees as natural
features to P3/A1 in the
South-east as appears in the
judgment plan.
For the reasons which I have
already given the appeal should
be dismissed and accordingly I
dismiss it.”
CONCURRING OPINION OF AMUAH JA
After briefly narrating the
facts and the grounds of appeal,
Amuah J.A, concurred in the
decision of Olaga J. T and
concluded thus:-
“My view is that just below the
regional boundary the area was
inhabited by the Abetifi.
By the overt acts of the
subjects of Abetifi stool on
Exhibit A and claims to
settlements and villages which
are underlined with green in
Abetifi stool colour, the
Abetifi stool are predominant in
the disputed area. The
settlements underlined green
out-numbered by far, those
underlined red for Pitiko.
I am therefore satisfied that
Abetifi Stool is the nearest
state of the Kwahu along the
Obosum River and the Ashanti
territory, and that the Kwahu
being referred to on or before
1906 are the people of Abetifi.
The appeal is dismissed.
I have also considered the
complaint lodged by Abetifi
Stool in their application for
variation. An appeal is for
rehearing and it is the duty of
the tribunal to consider any
complaint which points to a
substantial miscarriage of
justice.
As you are probably aware by
now, the credibility of Pitiko
Stool is greatly shaken.
They claim to be in possession
of a shrine in the Southern
portion of the disputed land
adjudged to belong to them.
However, Abetifi Stool claimed
to have granted it to them.
I have no cause to disbelieve
Abetifi Stool on this issue and
coupled with the fact that
Pitikos have not emigrated into
the said southern portion, I am
minded to grant the application.
The Southern boundary of the
disputed land claimed by Abetifi
shall therefore read, P4/A2 in
the south along the dotted green
line to P3/A1 where we have
different species of trees along
the boundary line, in otherwords
the southern boundary claimed by
Abetifi is granted to them.”
Solomey J.T, the third member of
the panel just concurred in the
decision of his two brothers.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Still undaunted, the Applicants
herein yet again appealed this
Appeal Tribunal decision to this
Court, which by a unanimous
decision rendered on the 29th
of November 2017 dismissed the
appeal.
The Supreme Court, speaking
through our distinguished and
respected brother, Pwamang JSC
held as follows:-
“This appeal is against the
judgment of the Stool Lands
Boundaries Appeals Tribunal
dated 16th June, 1993. In that
judgment the Appeals Tribunal
dismissed an appeal by Pitiko
Stool, hereinafter referred to
as the appellant, against the
decision of the Stool Lands
Boundaries Settlement
Commissioner, to be called the
Commissioner, dated 25th
January, 1991 and varied the
said decision by granting a
larger land to the Abetifi
Stool, which shall be referred
to as the respondent. The
disputed land lies roughly
between the Obosom river which
is along the boundary between
the Ashanti and Eastern Regions
of Ghana to the north, Dede
river to the East and the Afram
river to the west. At the
enquiry the parties relied on
traditional evidence and also
testified on acts of possession
within the disputed land in
proof of their boundary claims.
A surveyor was appointed by the
trial Commissioner who prepared
and tendered a plan on which he
indicated the respective
boundaries claimed by the
parties and their villages,
farms, shrines and other
features of possession. “
After beautifully setting out
the antecedents in the appeal
lodged before them as stated
supra, the Court, still speaking
through Pwamang JSC concluded
their decision thus:-
“We noticed from the grounds of
appeal and the statement of case
that the appellant did not
complain about the variation by
the Court of Appeal of the
boundary that was determined by
the trial Commissioner and which
was more favourable to the
appellant. The law accepts
alternative claims and defences
by parties and if appellant
could justify the boundary by
the trial Commissioner it should
have argued that before us so
its silence can only mean that
it is unable to support that
boundary either. It is apparent
from the evidence on record that
the appellant failed to lead
sufficient evidence of recent
facts so as to avoid a finding
against it on the disputed
boundary but unfortunately for
it that is what the law
requires of parties relying on
traditional evidence that tend
to conflict as in this case.
The respondent’s evidence of
recent acts of possession on the
whole outweighed that of the
appellants so they were entitled
to judgment in their favour.
In the circumstances we find no
merit in the appeal and we
dismiss same.”
Having set out the chronology of
events in this protracted
litigation commencing from the
Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission, then to
the Appeals Tribunal of the
Stool Lands, and finally to the
Supreme Court, and back to this
Court on a request to
“explain the demarcation of the
land to the parties in
accordance with the judgment of
the court delivered on 29th
November 2017”, we
accept the said invitation and
proceed to conclude this
rendition thus.
We refer to the evidence of
C.W.1 and the exhibits he
tendered which are Plans of the
land based on the judgments from
the Stool Lands and the Appeals
Tribunal, tendered as exhibits
CW2 and CW3. In view of the deep
clarity that his evidence has
brought to these proceedings, it
bears emphasis that, Exhibit
C.W.3, which is the Plan of the
land based on the decision of
the Appeals Tribunal of the
Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission is the
plan that has to be accepted for
the purpose of determination of
the real questions germane to
this application. This is
because an appellate court
decision is superior to that of
a trial court decision. By
simple logic, the decision of
the trial Stool Lands Boundaries
Settlement Commission is
equivalent to the High Court,
whilst that of the Appeals
Tribunal is equivalent to the
Court of Appeal.
EFFECT OF SUPREME COURT DECISION
There is absolutely no doubt,
that the Supreme Court, by their
unanimous decision referred to
supra, dismissed the appeal of
the Applicants herein against
the decision of the Appeals
Tribunal dated 16th
June 1993.
What this therefore means is
that, the variation by the
Appeals Tribunal of the decision
of the Commissioner of the Stool
Lands Boundaries Settlement
Commission, dated 25th
January 1991 still stands and is
thus valid and enforceable. This
is because, even though there
was not much clarity in the
rendition of the Supreme Court,
the statement “In the
circumstances, we find no merit
in the appeal and we dismiss
same speaks volume.”
That, since the appeal fails the
orders and decisions of the
Appeals Tribunal of 16th
January, 1993 still stands.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of our analysis
supra, and taking into account
all the exhibits tendered and
referred to supra in the
testimony of C.W.1, (Robert
Hackman Antwi) the Regional
Surveyor of the Survey and
Mapping Division of the Lands
Commission in the Eastern
Region, we affirm the Plan of
land as drawn by him and marked
herein as Exhibit C.W.3.
EPILOGUE
The boundaries of the land
between the parties herein shall
therefore be as delineated in
the plan of land marked as
Exhibit C.W.3 which shows the
Respondents land as follows:-
ü
From P1/A4 to P2/A3 bounded by
Ashanti and Gold Coast Colony,
Kumawu Stool land and Obosum
River to the north,
ü
From P2/A3 to P3/A1 boundered by
Dede River and Dedeso to the
West,
ü
From P3/A1 to P4/A2 boundered by
Dedeso to an area near Floating
Vegetation and
ü
From P4/A2 to P1/A4 boundered by
Floating Vegetation to Hyewoden
and another Floating Vegetation
more particularly delineated in
the colour legend for the
Abetifi Stool.
APPLICANT STOOL LAND BOUNDARIES
All land to the South of the
Respondents land described supra
and more particularly delineated
in the colour legend of the
Pitiko Stool as indicated on
Exhibit C.W.3.
In view of the clarity that this
Application has brought about,
there will be no order as to
costs.
V. J. M. DOTSE
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
S. K. MARFUL-SAU
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
A.
M. A. DORDZIE (MRS.)
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
N. A. AMEGATCHER
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON
(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)
COUNSEL
NII BI AYI BONTE FOR THE 1ST
CLAIMANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.
CHARLES HAYIBOR FOR THE 2ND
CLAIMANT/ RESPONDENT/ REPONDENT/
RESPONDENT. |
