Appeal Court. 16Dec., 1936.
Appeal from Judgment of the
Supreme Court.
Interpleader-Lease to Ashanti
chief-Ashanti native law and
custom-Lease held by chief as
individual--Stool not bound
unless elders or linguist join
in lease-Illiterate executing
agreement Onus of proof that
illiterate understood
agreement-English law applies
where document in English and in
English form.
Held: Lease taken by chief as
individual. Appeal allowed.
The facts are sufficiently set
out in the judgment.
Mr. E. O. Asafu-Adjaye
for Appellants.
Mr. H. A. Hayfron-Benjamin
for Claimant.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, C.]., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST, WEBBER, C.J.,
SIERRA LEONE.
The claimant-respondent claimed
that a certain piece of land
with the buildings thereon
should be "declared and adjudged
to be the property of the Agona
Stool per Kwadjo Apaw." The
trial Judge held that the
property in question was stool
property. The land in question
had been seized in execution of
a judgment debt and costs
recovered against Kwadjo Apaw.
The land was the subject-matter
of a written agreement dated the
25th November, 1927, made
between the then Chief
Commissioner of Ashanti on
behalf of the Government of
Ashanti of the one part and"
Chief Kojo Apaw, Omanhene of
Agona" (thereinafter called the
lessee) of the other part.
Paragraph 1 of that agreement
reads as follows :-
.• 1. That in consideration of
the rent hereinafter reserved
and of the covenants and
conditions hereinafter contained
and on the part of the lessee,
his executors, administrators
and assigns (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the
lessee or lessees) to be
observed and performed the
Government doth hereby demise
unto the lessee ALL THAT piece
of land situate at Kumasi in
Ashanti described in the
schedule hereto .
.• TO HOLD the same unto the
lessee or lessees for the term
of fifty years from the first
day of January 1928 at the
yearly rental of £100 payable in
advance by equal yearly payments
on the first day of January in
every year one such payment
being made on the execution of
these presents."
By paragraph 2 of that agreement
the lessee covenanted with the
Government, inter alia, "
to demolish the existing
building on the said piece of
land within six months to begin
a new building
thereon within twelve months and
to complete the. same within
eighteen months from the date of
the execution of these presents
in accordance with plans first
submitted to and approved by the
Kumasi
Public Health Board. Not to make
or cause to be made any
material alteration in the said
building nor build any other
building or buildings on
the said piece of land without
first obtaining the
consent
in writing of the Kumasi Public
Health Board."
At the end of that agreement it
is stated that " the Indenture
of
Lease No. 1087, dated 21st
October, 1926, and made between
John Maxwell, Esq., C.M.G.,
C.C.A., of the one part, and
Kojo Apaw of the other part is
hereby cancelled."
The learned trial Judge in his
judgment states :-
" This lease was in effect a
renewal of a former leas.e
granted in 1912 to Boakyi, elder
brother and predecessor on the
stool of Apaw. Under that former
lease, the property appears from
evidence to have been regarded
and dealt with as stool
property. Endorsements on the
former lease indicate that it
was from time to time
transferred to Omanhene on
succession. This present
existing lease has been dealt
with by deed Exhibit' B '
whereby interest in the property
has been assigned to one Thome
and another for a term of
years-this with the consent of
the Elders and of the Chief
Commissioner Ashanti.
This is a clear indication that
it is stool property.
Antu
v.
Buadu,
F,C. 1929 at p. 477 .. "
After quoting from the head-note
to the case of
Kwamin v.
Kobina Kufuor,
P.C. 1874-1928, p. 28, the
learned trial Judge goes on to
say :-
" Apaw then,' in taking this
renewal of the lease in the same
terms as his predecessor, may
well have supposed that he took
it on behalf of the stool as his
predecessor had held to the best
of his knowledge and belief,"
It is quite clear that the stool
base their claim to the land on
the agreement of the 25th
August, 1931. Now the stool were
not parties to that agreement.
Nowhere does Kwadjo Apaw aver in
his evidence that when he
appended his mark to the
agreement he thought he was
s:ontracting on behalf of the
stool. We are quite satisfied
that he could not truthfully
have made such a statement, for
he must have been perfectly well
aware that by native law and
custom he could not bind. the
stool by such an agreement
unless the elders, or at all
events the linguist, had been a
party thereto. It has been
contended that Kwadjo Apaw,
being a stool-holder, was not
entitled to hold land according
to the native law and custom of
Ashanti. There is no evidence
that such is the native law and
custom of Ashanti and we see no
reason to believe that such is
the case. Apaw has himself
admitted in evidence that in
Ashanti a stool occupant can
retain" personal property" : by
this he obviously meant
individual property and not
"personally" as opposed to "
realty" for the term " personal
property" would not be used in
any other sense by an
interpreter in this country.
Furthermore, in the unreported
case of
Geboah v. Chief Yaw Dabanka,
defendant, and
Chief Yaw Dabanka,
claimant, Bannerman, J., who has
unrivalled knowledge of the
laws and customs of this
country, held, on the evidence
in that case, that an Ashanti
chief could hold land
Apaw is a native of Ashanti and
as it would appear that at all
events when he signed the
agreement he could not
understand English and was
illiterate, it is clear that
there is no presumption that he
has appreciated the meaning and
effect of the agreement.
This is one of the matters which
has to be proved by the
appellants.
(See
the concluding paragraph of the
judgment of the Privy Council in
Atta Kwamin v. Kobina KufztOr.)
In that judgment it is also
stated :-
" The respondent's case is not
that a contract binding upon him
should be set aside on the
ground of fraud or
misrepresentation, but that no
contract was ever made which
could bind him or his
predecessor. So far as this
rests on want of authority in
the person professing to bind
him, the law is perfectly clear.
But in so far as it rests on
mistake or ignorance it is by no
means to be governed, as the
learned Judge seems to assume,
by the same considerations as a
purely English contract. The
principle of law is the same in
both cases, but the presumptions
of fact are widely different if
a contract is subscribed,
without negligence, in the
honest belief that it is a
document of a totally different
nature, it is not binding upon
the subscriber, not by reason of
fraud or misrepresentation but
because the mind of signer did
not accompany his signature. If
he is excusably mistaken as to
its actual contents he never
intended to sign and in law he
never did sign the paper to
which his name or mark is
appended."
Now in this case having regard
to the fact that Apaw must have
known that he alone could not
bind the stool and that he has
never alleged that he personally
contracted in error or by
ignorance, we are unable to come
to the conclusion that Kwadjo
Apaw was excusably mistaken as
to the actual contents of the
agreement. We are driven to the
conclusion that when Kwadjo Apaw
affixed his mark he knew that he
was binding himself and not the
stool.
That being so we have to inquire
whether the agreement in
question is one that must be
governed by English law.
In the case of
Fawcett v. Odamtten
(1929), P.C .. 26-29, 339, the
Full Court held that a
conveyance written in English in
the usual form must be construed
in accordance with English law;
and in the case of
Quarshie v. Plange
(1927), F.e. 26-29, 246, the
same Court decided that where
parties adopted the English
method of sale they are bound by
the principles of English law.
In our opinion the agreement of
25th November, 1927, must be
construed by the law of England.
Subsequent to this agreement an
indenture dated 1st May, 1928,
in English form was entered
between Kwadj6 Apaw Omanhene of
Agona, his heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns and
two Syrians. By this indenture
Omanhene Apaw, his heirs,
executors, administrators and
assigns, with the consent of his
elders, gave the two Syrians the
contract for erecting the new
Agona Stool House on the land in
dispute. This indenture gave
these two Syrians the right to
occupy parts of the building to
be erected, and in paragraph 4
it was provided that the said"
Omanhene Kwadjo Apaw, his heirs,
executors, administrators and
assigns" were to occupy the
second storey and that the yard
was to be occupied by Omanhene
Kwadjo Apaw. This agreement
appears to have been witnessed
by all the elders.