344
Appeal Court
27 Nov., 1933
Accra, 27th November 1933.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONCESSIONS
ORDINANCE AND IN THE MATTER OF
THE CERTIFICATES OF VALIDITY
GRANTED IN CONCESSION ENQUIRIES
Nos. 898, 903, 907, 909, 912,
919, 920, 944, 945, 946, 947 AND
948 (ACCRA). NAN A KW AKU AMOAH
II, MANKRADO YAW EWUA AND ODIKRO
KW AME KUMA OF ASAMANGKESE AND
AKWATIA AND OPANYIN ANY AN
TIBO OF i\SAMANGKESE
AND
OPANYIN KO]O AMl\1AH
OF
ASAMANGKESE •••
v.
NANA
SIR
OFORI ATTA, K.B.E.
OMANHENE OF AKYEM ABUAKWA AND
THE CONSOLIDATED AFRICAN
SELECTION TRUST LTD. THE HOLDERS
OF THE ABOVE-
MENTIONED CONCESSIONS
...... Respondents.
Concessions Ordinance-Enquiry
into the validity of several
concessions-Opposition from
paramount chief claiming a
onethird share of the
rents-Condition inserted
providing for the endorsation of
the Paramount Chief's claim if
and when established at
law-Claim eventually
established-Jurisdiction of
Court to insert condition-Power
of Court to order endorsation.
The representatives of the
Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools,
both of which are subordinate to
the Paramount Stool of Akyem
Abuakwa, granted a number of
diamond mining concessions to
the Consolidated African
Selection Trust Limited. When
the latter applied to the
Concessions Court at Accra for
the issue of Certificate of
Validity in respect of these
concessions the Omanhene of
Akyem Abuakwa appeared to oppose
the validation of each
concession on the grounds (1)
that the assent of the Paramount
Stool of Akyem Abuakwa was
necessary to any alienation of
their lands by the Subordinate
Stools of Asamangkese and
Akwatia, and (2) that the
Paramount Stool was entitled to
a one-third share of the rents
payable under each concession.
The Concessions Court, with a
view tc' avoiding delay and at
the instance of the Omanhene and
the Sele-::tion Trust, decreed
the issue of a Certificate of
Validity in respect of each
concession subject to the
insertion therein of the
following condition :-
" Nothing contained in this
Certificate of Validity shall
affect the rights or title of
the Omanhene of Akyem Abuakwa on
behalf of the Stool of.Akyem
Abuakwa in respect of which he
claims :-Firstly, that the
assent of the said Omanhene was
necessary for the valid
alienation of the land comprised
in the said concession which
assent was duly obtained by the
said claimants but the necessity
thereof disputed by the said
grantors; and secondly, that the
said Omanhene is entitled to
one-third part of all rents and
profits reserved by and payable
under the said concession which
claim is disputed
Nana Kwak'lt Amoah II
6-
ors. v. Nana Sir Ofori Atta
6-
ors.
by the grantors. In the event of
any of the said claims, or ~ny ~ther
righ~s of the said Omanhene over
or in respect of the land
compnsed In the saId concession
being hereafter finally declared
in an action at law this
Certificate of Validity shall be
endorsed accordingly, and any
rents and royalties to which the
said Omanhene may be entitled
shall be paid accordingly."
Although the representatives of
the Asamangkese and Akwatia
Stools 0I?posed the insertion of
this condition in all the
Certificates of Validity which
were Issued, they did not appeal
against its insertion in any
single case.
The Omanhene commenced an action
to establish the claims set out
in the above " condition," but
it was eventually discontinued
by consent and the questions at
issue therein along with several
other questions at issue between
his Stool and the Asamangkese
and Akwatia Stools were referred
to arbitration in the year 1929.
After a lengthy arbitration the
arbitrator (Hall, J.) awarde<;i
and adjudged (inter alia) that
although the Paramount Stool of
Akyem Abuakwa IS not, according
to custom, necessary for the
valid alienation of lands held
by the Asamangkese and Akwatia
yet the Paramount Stool is, by
the custom of Akyem Abuakwa
entitled to receive one equal
third share of all rents and
profits of lands alienated by
those stools or either of them.
The representatives of the
Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools
moved the Divisional to set
aside the award, and had
judgment given against them.
From that judgment they appealed
without success to the West
African Court of Appeal and then
to the Privy Council. The award
being thus upheld the Omanhene
had it made an order of the
Supreme Court and then moved the
Concessions Court
ex parte
for an order that each
Certificate of Validity should
be endorsed Ivith a statement
that his claim to a one-third
share of the rent payable
thereunder had been established.
In doing so he relied on the
condition set out above which
had been inserted in each
Certificate of Validity.
The Concessions Court made an
order as prayed, and refused a
motion by the representatives of
the Asamangkese and Akwatia
Stools to set it aside. The
latter :tppealed from such
refusal on the grounds (I) that
the Concessions Court had no
jurisdiction to insert the
condition in any Certificate of
Validity, and (2) that the
Concessions Ordinance contained
no provision under which such an
order could be made.
Held (1) the question of the
Concessions Court's jurisdiction
to insert the above stated
condition in the Certificates of
Validity was
res judicata
and could not be considered in
these proceedings.
Held (2) the Conc:essions Court
had power to make the order for
endorsation under the Rules of
the Supreme Court which apply to
proceedings under the
Concessions Ordinance.
The appeal was therefore
dismissed with costs.
W. E.
G. Sekyi and W. Kojo
Thompson for the Appellants.
E.
C. Quist and J. Henley
Coussey for the Respondent
Nana Sir Ofori Atta.
G. Kn·utford for the
Respondents the Consolidated
African Selection Trust Ltd.
The following judgments were
delivered :DEANE, C.]. THE GOLD
COAST COLONY.
In or about May, 1924, the
Consolidated African Selection
Trust Ltd., as grantees of a
number of diamond concessions
having applied to the Court
under the Concessions Ordinance
for Certificates of Validity of
the same, opposition was entered
to the issue of such
certificates by the Omanhene of
Akyem Abuakwa who claimed (1)
that the land the subject matter
of the concessions could not be
alienated without his consent
(2) that h~ was entitled to a
third part of all rents and
profits alleged to be payable to
the grantors in respect of the
said concessions. Before this
opposition could he disposecl of
the Ohene of Asamangkese and the
Odikro of Akwatia as
representing with others the
Stools of Asamangkese aud
Akwatia the grantors of the
concessions themselves entered
opposition to the issue of the
Certificates of Validity for
reasons other than those
advanced by the Omanhene.
An enquiry was held under the
Concessions Ordinance as
provided by sections 11 and 12
of the Ordinance to determine
the validity of the concessions,
at the dose of which the
lastmentioned opposition was
dismissed with costs against the
grantors. From the judgment in
the matter which was delivered
on 20th November, 1924, it
appears that during the course
of the enquiry to wit on 23rd
Augu<'t, 1924-, Mr. COllssey of
Counsel for the Omanhene
withdrew his opposition to the
issue of the certificates, a
compromise having been arrived
at between the grantees
(Claimants) and the Omanhene,
which compromise was approved of
by the Court by which it was
agreed that the Omanhene should
withdrew his oppositio!l to the
issue of the Certificates of
Validity in consideration of a
clause being inserted by the
Court in the certificates to the
effect that the certificates
were issued on the condition
that nothing in them should
affect the right or title of the
Omanhene in respect of any of
his aforesaid claims pending the
result of an action at law to be
taken by the Omanhen€' agaiI1st
the grantors to establish such
claims, and that ill the event
of the said claims or either of
them being upheld by the Courts
the said certificates should be
endorsed accordingly and any
rent of royalties to which the
opposer might be declared
entitled should be paid to the
said Omanhene. This was done and
the Certificates of Validity
issued accordingly with the said
condition attached to the issue
by the Court purporting to act
under section 14 of the
Concessions Ordinance, in
imposing such condition with
respect to the issue of the'
!'aid certificates.
The object of so disposing of
the matter was clearly to
facilitate the grantees who
could not make use of the
concessions until they obtained
Certificates of Validity. The
opposition of the grantors
having failed they were entitled
to the issue of the
certificates, but for the
dispute between the Omanhene and
the grantors about the former's
right, as to which they were in
no way concerned since the
amount of rents payable by them
remained constant in any event.
There was no valid reason
therefore why the working of the
concessions should be delayed
pending the determination of
those issues, especially as it
would probably be a long
business; the grantors rights
also would not be in any way
prejudiced since the arrangement
would allow the claims raised
against them by the Omanhene to
be decided in the Courts, and in
the meantime the grantors could
draw two-thirds of the rent
reserved under the concession
the remaining one-third being
retained by the Treasurer to
whom it was first payable by the
concessionaires pending the
determination of the rights set
up by the Omanhene. That the
fear of delay was not fanciful
is shown by what occurred. On
12th May, 1927, an action at law
was instituted by the Omanhene
in the Supreme Court against the
grantors asking for a
declaration
(1) that the assent of the
plaintiff as occupant of the
Paramount Stool of Akyem Abuakwa
was necessary for the valid
alienation of lauds in the
division of Akyem Abuakwa
including lands held by the
defendant stools (2) that the
plaintiff was entitled to one
equal third pa.rt of all rents
and profits of lands alienated
in Akyem Abuakwa aforesaid
inclucting lands alienated by
the defendants. Pleadings were
ordered in the adion but on its
coming on for hearing it was by
leave of the Court discontinued
on the parties agreeing to have
their differences enquired into
and determined by Mr. Justice
Hall sitting as an Arbitrator
under the provisions of the
Arbitration Ordinance 1928. In
the event the Arbitrator held
that although by native custom
the assent of the Omanhene was
not necessary for the alienation
of the land by the grantors, he
was nevertheless entitled to
one-third of the rel1ts of all
lands alienated by the stools of
Asamangkese and Akwatia or
either of them. The grantors
thereupon moved in the
Divisional Court to set aside
the award of the arbitrator:
their motion was dismissed. They
then appealed to the West
African Court of Appeal, which
dismissed the appeal, and again
to the Privy Council when their
appeal was again dismissed by a
judgment delivered on the 21st
November, 1932. Thereupon the
award of the arbitrator
confirmed by the judgment of the
Privy Council having been made
an order of the Court, the
Omanhene applied that in
accordance with the condition
contained in the Certificate of
Validity the said Certificates
should be endorsed with a
statement that his claim to
one-third of the rent. payable
under them had been sustained.
The motion was made
ex parte
as it. merely requested the
Court to do something which it
has already ordered should be
done on the happening of an
event which had now occurred,
and an order was obtained that
the endorsation should be made
as prayed, but the Court in
making the order also ordered
that it should be served upon
the grantors in order that they
might if so advised move to set
it aside. This they did by
motion which came on for
argument on 22nd April, 1933,
but the learned Judge after
hearing them fully, confirmed
his previous order and refused
to set it aside. It is against
this refusal that this appeal
has been brought.
The appellants now contend that
the order for endorsation of the
certificates could not properly
be made under section 14 of the
Concessions Ordinance as they
say it was. They point to a note
made by the learned Judge who
heard the motion to endorse,
which appears on page 8 of the
supplementary record containing
the proceedings which took place
on the hearing of the
ex parte
motion and which reads, "Mr.
Coussey moves the Court under
section 14 of the Concessions
Ordinance (Cap. 27)," as showing
that the application was made
under this section and contend
that the section is not
applicable. On behalf of the
respondent it is contended that
the learned Judge misapprehended
Mr. Coussey who no doubt
referred to the Certificates of
Validity with the conditions
attached to them as having been
made under the section, and as
forming the basis of his
application, and asked that the
right of the Omanhene to have
the said certificates endorsed
as in them should be
implemented. As this latter
contention is entirely in accord
with the wording of the motion
before the Court, which was to
use its exact words " for an
order that the abovementioned
certificates be modified as
therein provided by the
endorsement thereon of a
declaration that one-third of
all rents and profits reserved
thereby and payable thereunder
by the Consolidated African
Selection Trust Ltd ..... is
payable to the Paramount Stool
of Akyem Abuakwa," it seems to
me that the objection, which at
best is of a highly technical
nature, cannot be sustained. The
real question to be determined
is whether or no the Omanhene
was entitled to ask, as he did,
to have the rights reserved to
him under the certificates
implemented; and if he was so
entitled it can make no
difference even if his counsel
did make a mistake (I do not
think he did) in thinking that
the motion could be made under
section 14 of Cap. 27. By
section 6 of the Concessions
Ordinance every proceeding under
the Concessions Ordinance is a
matter within the meaning of the
Supreme Court Ordinance, and
subject to the provisions of the
Concessions Ordinance the
Supreme Court Ordinance is to be
read and construed with it, and
1 do not see how it can be
reasonably contended that such
an application, which is not
provided for in the Concessions
Ordinance where no provision is
made as to what is to be done in
case of unavoidable delay in
determining the destination of
rent payable under a Concession,
as to which a Certificate of
Validity is applied for, cannot
be made in accordance with the
ordinary rules governing
applications in the Supreme
Court. 1 think it could be so
made and that the Court on
hearing all the circumstances
would have power to grant the
prayer of the motion in this
case.
Nor is the complaint that the
order was made
ex parte
one of substance.
The grantors have been fully
heard on the motion to set aside
the order, which was essentially
one which could be made
ex parte.
1 have stated this appeal is
against a refusal to set aside
an order that certain
endorsations should be made upon
the Certificates of Validity of
Concessions in accordance with a
clause inserted in the
certificates when they were
issued which was some time in
1924. Now the appellants seeks
to attack the jurisdiction of
the Court to insert the said
clause as part of the
certificates.
But there has never been an
appeal against the order
validating these concessions; on
the contrary the grantors have
adopted it having been receiving
for some time two-thirds of the
rent payable under the
certificates and acquiescing in
the retention by the 1reasurer
of the other one-third pending
the determination of the
litigation between the Omanhene
and themselves. It is now too
late in my opinion to raise any
such issue, and in any case it
seems to me that they are
precluded from doing so by
section 29 of the Concessions
Ordihance which provides that a
certificate shall be good and
valid from the date of such
certificate as against any
person claiming adversely
thereto. The certificate has the
effect of a judgment and cannot
be disputed so long as it
stands.
The supplementary order made by
the learned Judge providing that
the order made ih the premises
should be brought to the notice
of the Treasurer was, it seems
to me, an entirely natural and
proper order to make.
This appeal should be dismissed
with costs £29 Is.
WEBBER, C.J. SIERRA LEONE.
I concur.
AITKEN, J.
This is the third appeal which
has come before this Court as a
result of Mr. Justice (as he
then was) Hall's award on the
various differences and disputes
between the Paramount Stool of
Akyem Abuakwa on the one side,
and the Subordinate Stools of
Asamangkese and Akwatia on the
other side, which were referred
to him as arbitrator by a deed
of submission dated the 18th of
June, 1929. By that award, which
appears to have been published
on the 9th September, 1929, he
awarded and adjudged (inter alia)
that although the assent of the
Paramount Stool is not,
according to custom, necessary
for the valid alienation of
lands held by the Stools of
Asamangkese and Akwatia yet the
Paramount Stool is, by the
custom of Akyem Abuakwa,
entitled to receive one equal
third part of all rents and
profits of lands alienated by
those Stools or either of them.
In order to connect that finding
with the Concessions Ordinance
and the Certificates of Validity
now under consideration, it is
necessary to go back to the
three Enquiries Nos. 898, 903
and 907 respectively into
Concessions granted by the
Subordinate Stools of
Asamangkese and Akwatia to The
Selection Trust Ltd. (now the
Consolidated African Selection
Trust Ltd.) which were held
before the Divisional Court at
Accra during the year 1924. Nana
Sir Ofori Atta (then Nana Ofori
Atta) was made a party to each
enquiry for the purpose of
opposing the grant of a
Certificate of Validity on the
grounds-
(a)
that the assent of the Paramount
Stool of Akyem Abuakwa was
necessary to any alienation of
their lands by these subordinate
stools, and
(b)
that the Paramount Stool was
entitled to a one-third share of
the rents (and apparently other
monetary considerations) payable
by the holder, that is, the
Selection Trust Ltd.
1\s soon as the Omanhene was
thus made a party to these
enquiries the grantors, that is
the Subordinate Stools of
Asamangkese and Akwatia, also
applied for and obtained leave
to oppose their own grant
apparently on the grunods that,
since they recognised no rights
in the Paramount Stool over
their lands, they would never
have granted any concession to
which Nana Sir Ofori Atta, as
the Omanhene of the Paramount
Stool, could be made a party or
under which he could receive any
benefit in that capacity.
It was certainly a curious
situation to find the grantors
opposing their own grant, and it
would seem that they were
prepared to forego all the very
considerable monetary benefits
to flow from those concessions
rather than admit that the
Omanhene had any right to join
with them as a grantor or to
share in such benefits.
During the course of the
enquiry, to be precise on the
23rd of August, .1924, the
Omanhene withdrew his opposition
on certain terms which were
arranged between' him and the
Selection Trust Limited,
apparently without any reference
to the grantor~, that is, the
representatives of the
Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools,
and it was part of the
arrangement that these terms
should be embodied in the
Certificates of Validity (if and
when granted). The enquiry thus
continued with the grantors as
the only opposers-it seems clear
that they never withdrew their
opposition, and on the 20th of N
ovem ber, 1924, the Court
decreed the issue of a
Certificate of Validity in
respect of each concession and
dismissed the grantors'
opposition thereto in each case.
Certificates of Validity were
duly issued in pursuance of this
decree, and amongst the
limitations, modifications and
conditions imposed by the Court
the following are to be found :-
" Nothing contained in this
Certificate of Validity shall
affect the rights or title of
the Omanhene of Akyem Abuakwa on
behalf of the Stool of Akyem
Abuakwa in respect of his
claims':- " brstly that the
assent of the said Omanhene was
necessary for the valid ;;lienation
of the land comprised in the
said concession which assent was
duly obtained by the said
claimants but the necessity
thereof disputed by the said
grantors; and secondly that the
said Omanhene is entitled to
one-third part of all rents and
profits reserved by and payable
under the said concession which
claim is disputed by the
Grantors .
•• In the event of any of the
said claims, or any other rights
of the said Omanhene over or in
respect of the land comprised in
the said CDncession being
hereafter finally declared in an
action at law this Certificate
of Validity shall be endorsed
accordingly, and any rents and
royalties to which the said
Omanhene may be entitled shall
be paid accordingly."
I have thought it best to set
out the exact words used in the
Certificate of Validity itself
although, for the understanding
of the same, it must be stated
that-
(a)
The expression "The said
Concession" means the Concession
which was being validated;
(b)
The expression "The said
Claimants" means the Selection
Trust, Limited, and
(c)
The expression "The said
Grantors" means the
representatives of the
Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools.
The precise wording of these
particular modifications or
conditions-I will henceforth
refer to them as conditions-may
be some importance.
Now it is to be observed that no
appeal was lodged against the
decision 6f the Divisional Court
in these Concessions Enquiries,
so that it seems rather late in
point of time to object that the
Court had no jurisdiction to
impose those conditions. In
point of fact they were imposed
by the name Divisional Court in
respect of all the other
Certificates of Validity which
are before us in this appeal,
apparently without any active
opposition on the part of the
representatives of the
Asamangkese and Akwatia Stools.
Had an appeal been prosecuted
against them it seems to me that
it might have succeeded on the
following grounds :-
(a)
That section 14 of the
Concessions Ordinance only
empowers the Court to impose
modifications or conditions in
the interests of the native
owners of the land or of
competing concessionaires, and
(b)
That at the time of imposing the
same the Paramount Stool of
Akyem Abuakwa had established no
such interests: in point of fact
it never did succeed in
establishing them.
In the absence of any such
appeal, however, it seems to me
far too late to agitate those
questions atthe'Present day.
To my mind all these
Certificates of Validity must be
taken as they stand, and we must
regard the inclusion of these
conditions as res judicata.
In other words it is
impossible to scrutinise their
validity now.
The real question before us
appears to be this :--can the
Divisional Court give effect to
the findings of the learned
arbitrator in regard to the
Omanhene's claims which I have
already set out in full at the
commencement of this judgment.
(It is true that these findings
occur in an award and not in an
action at law, but in point of
fact the Omanhene of Akyem
Abuakwa did commence an action
at law for the purpose of
deciding his claims and that
action was, by consent,
withdrawn in order that the
issues raised thereby might be
considered and dealt with by the
learned arbitrator. I think we
must accept his findings as
equivalent to a judgment of the
Court).
I cannot say that I feel
entirely free from doubt in the
matter, but it seems to me that
the Court would be stultifying
itself if it refused to give
effect to conditions which it
had itself imposed without any
party to the enquiry taking any
steps to set them aside. As to
whether or no the procedure
adopted by the Omanhene to get
these Certificates of Validity
endorsed with the claim he has
succeeded in establishing is in
accordance with any particular
section of the Concessions
Ordinance seems to me to be a
matter of trifling importance,
and such procedure can be
supported under Order V rule 2
of the Supreme Court Rules
though I think a motion on
notice to the grantors would
have been better than a motion
ex parte. But be that as
it may be, the Omanhene has got
an award in his favour with
respect to his one-third rents
and profits claim which the
Privy Coun61 has refused to set
aside, and which has been made
an Order of the Supreme Court of
this Colony.
351
Nana Kwaku Amoah II & ors.
v.
Nana Sir Ofori Atta & ors.
Aitken.
J.
2