|
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________
ATUGUBA, JSC:-
The central issue in this appeal
is whether it is the Drobohene
or Japekromhene who has allodial
title to the land in dispute.
The trial court held that though
the Drobohene might have some
residual interest in the
disputed land he failed to prove
its nature and extent and
therefore dismissed his claim
thereto.
The crux of counsel for the
appellants’ submission is that
as allodial title to the land in
dispute formerly vested in the
Bono or Gyaman Paramount chief
who fell on the French Ivory
Coast side of a partition of the
territory of the Bono Kingdom
between the French and the
English, that title devolved on
the Drobohene who was made
Paramount Chief over the English
side of the Bono Kingdom
consequent upon the said
partition.
It is however clear from the
record of proceedings that the
claim of overlordship of
Japekrom and other villages
after the partition of the Bono
or Gyaman Kingdom is based on
British administrative elevation
and not customary elevation by
the Bono or Jaman customary
overlord of the contesting
parties.
The evidence of DW4, the
Bonohene or Gyamanhene at P.222
of the record of appeal is as
follows:
“I did not appoint him
(Drobohene) as a paramount
chief. He was Adontewaa.
At the time of the demarcation
of the boundary between the
French and the British, the
Drobohene was not an Omanhene.
I testified in a land dispute
between Drobo and Dwenem. I
also elected somebody to testify
in another land dispute between
Drobo and Japekrom. I had
nothing to do with the status of
Drobohene.”(e.s)
Thus at p.229 of the record of
appeal the Court of Appeal
unanimously per Irene Danquah
J.A poignantly stated
thus:
“It must be stressed that it is
the Co-Plaintiff’s case that he
derived his allodial interest in
the lands he is claiming
because he was made the Omanhene
by Gyamanhene after the
demarcation of the boundary
between the French and the
English colonist. He
claimed further that by that
status acquired from Gyamanhene
he automatically became the
allodial owner of all lands
including Japekrom and
specifically Faago which were
under Gyamanhene. In our
view these assertions fell flat
considering the evidence of the
Gyamanhene before the Special
Committee as well as his
evidence in this action. As we
stated earlier, the Drobohene
did not challenge the Gyamanhene
when he stated in no uncertain
terms that he did not make the
Drobohene the Omanhene. Not only
that but he confirmed the
history narrated by Japekrom
that Japekrom is the original
occupant of the area before
Drobo people came to that area.”
(e.s)
Again Irene Danquah J.A stated
clearly at p.228 of the record
of appeal thus:
“In the instant case there are
categorical statements made by
the two separate committees set
up by the Government to
investigate dispute between the
Drobo Stool and Japekrom Stool.
As can be discerned from those
pieces of evidence, it is clear
that not only did Japekrom
attempt to gain its
administrative independence from
Drobo as soon as the country
gained its independence from the
British Colonialist but asserted
its rights in respects to land
of Japekrom and its environ
including some villages within
the area. From the reports of
the two Commissions referred to
supra, it is clear that Drobo on
these occasions admitted
Japekrom rights to the lands in
contention. Further it is
clear that Drobo did not
dispute the history as narrated
by Japekrom especially the fact
that they were first to settle
in the area. Concerning recent
acts, Drobo conceded the fact
that they were first to settle
in the area. Concerning recent
acts, Drobo conceded the fact
that Japekrom exercised rights
as owner of the land when the
Court house and the Secondary
School were being built at New
Drobo.” (e.s)
The administrative conferment of
overlordship status over
villages not hitherto under him
by the colonial British
administration did not operate
to confer any customary rights
of inter alia, allodial
title thereto on the Drobohene.
Even under modern post
independence administration, the
need for the recognition by the
government of a chief, when such
recognition was required or even
the entry of a person’s name as
chief in the National Register
of Chiefs, do not derogate from
the true customary position of
things – see Republic v
National House of Chiefs,
Kumasi; Ex-parte Kusi-Appea(1984-86)2
GLR 90 C.A. Indeed this is very
trite chieftaincy law.
The chiefs know that this is the
legal position. Thus as
pp.232-233 Irene Danquah J.A
stated thus:
“The creation of Drobo as an
independent Omanhene was
obviously made by the British
Government. The above fact
is buttressed by the evidence of
the Omanhene of Berekum
Traditional Area during the One
hundred and Thirty-Fifth sitting
– Wednesday 23rd
July, 1975 before the Committee
of Inquiry (Brong-Ahafo) at page
197 (Exhibit Vol.2) at page 15
of the report when Nana Yiadom
Boakye II the Omanhene in his
evidence stated that;
“When several Ahafo and
Brong Chiefs were placed under
Berekum, we never took any
part of their revenue accruing
from their Stool lands.”
From all the foregoing it is
quite clear that the concurrent
findings of the High Court and
the Court of Appeal are solidly
based both in fact and law.
The appeal is therefore
dismissed.
(SGD) W. A.
ATUGUBA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
(SGD)
J. ANSAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT
(SGD)
V. J. M. DOTSE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD)
ANIN YEBOAH
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
(SGD)
V. AKOTO BAMFO (MRS)
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
COUNSEL
JAMES AHENKORAH ESQ. FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.
OBENG MANU JNR. ESQ. (WITH HIM
BRIDGET AKATTAH) FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT.
|
