Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ghanalegal.com/public_html/engine/Drivers/mysql.php on line 101 AKWEI AND OTHERS v. AWULETEY AND OTHERS | GhanaLegal - Resources for the legal brains

AKWEI AND OTHERS v. AWULETEY AND OTHERS


  • New
  • 1960-11-29
  • SUPREME COURT
  • GLR 231-241
  • Print

KORSAH, C.J., SARKODEE-ADOO AND AKIWUMI, JJ.S.C.


Summary

Land?-Declaration of title?-Osu stool rural lands?-Authority for granting such lands?-Authority for granting quarter lands and outskirt lands attached to a quarter.

Headnotes

The plaintiff, a subject of Osu brought this action for declaration of title to a piece of land forming part of a larger area known as the "Maamobi-Kotobabi-Dzorwulu" lands which again were part of Osu stool rural lands. The plaintiff relied on a deed of gift dated 16th August, 1952, executed by the acting Osu Mantse, one Nii Okwei Omaboe. In his evidence, although he had not pleaded it, he claimed that this document was confirmatory of a customary grant made to him in 1948 by the then Osu Mantse. The defendant also claimed ownership of the land by virtue of a customary grant made in 1954 by the Osu Mankralo, to whose stool, he said, the land belonged. The Osu Mantse and the Osu Mankralo were joined as co-plaintiff and co-defendant respectively. The Osu Mantse claimed a declaration that the land in dispute was part of the Osu stool lands and that the plaintiff by virtue of the deed of gift had acquired a good title. The Osu Mankralo in his application for joinder, claimed that the land in dispute belonged to the Osu Mankralo stool and in his statement of defence averred that the "Maamobi-Kotobabi-Dzorwulu" lands had been settled upon exclusively by the people of the Ashanti Blohum quarter of Osu (the quarter under the Osu Mankralo Stool) and that any grant of a piece of those lands required his consent and that of his elders. The Osu Mantse, in reply, pleaded that the fact of such settlement did not give to the people of the Ashanti Blohum quarter either title to the land or the right of alienation. During the course of the trial in the Land Court, Accra, the plaintiff withdrew his claim. The co-plaintiff continued the action and judgment was at the close of the case given in favour of the defendant and co-defendant. The co-plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. [p.232]

Judgement

APPEAL from a decision of the Land Court (Ollennu, J.) given on March 18, 1958 in favour of the defendant and co-defendant in an action for declaration of title, recovery of possession, mesne profits and injunction.

JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.

The following is an extract from the judgment of Ollennu, J.

Upon the evidence in this case I have come to the following general conclusions of fact as to custom: ?- (a) All lands in the Osu Division of the Ga State are Osu stool lands. (b) The Osu stool lands have two categories namely: outskirt, town or sub-urban lands, and village or rural lands. (c) There are four quarters in Osu, namely ?- Kinkawe, Ashanti Blohum, Alata and Anarhor. (d) Both types of the Osu stool lands are under the direct control of the heads and elders of the four quarters, each quarter is in charge of all lands north of it. (e) Subjects of the Osu stool can acquire portions of the sub-urban or outskirt lands, but only by actual grant. The sole authority to make such grants is the head of each quarter acting with the consent and concurrence of his elders. (f) Subjects of the Stool may with express or implied permission of the head of the quarter occupy any portion of the stool's rural or village lands. (g) The heads of the quarters control the rural or village lands through the heads of the villages on the land, such heads being appointed by the head and elders of the quarter in charge of the particular land, and express grants of portions of the rural or village lands are made by the heads of the quarter acting with the concurrence of the village headman. (h) It is not in accordance with custom that the Osu stool itself should make grants of either outskirt or village lands to a subject. (j) No valid sale or absolute alienation of any shape or form can be made of either outskirt or village land without the knowledge and concurrence of the Osu stool through the quarter head. (j) The Osu stool is by custom entitled to a share of any customary drink or tribute which a subject gives to the head and elders of the quarter for grant made to him of any portion of the stool land, outskirt or village land. I have no evidence of the exact share of the customary drink or tribute which the head of the quarter should give to the stool, but it appears to me that it will not be the major share. (k) In the case of alienation by sale or otherwise, the proceeds are to be presented to the Osu stool which comprises the Mantse, and his sub-chiefs, namely the heads of all the four quarters; the quarter in whose area the land alienated is situate is given a special portion of the proceeds, and the balance is shared in the following manner: ?- three parts to the Mantse, two parts to [p.233] the Mankralo and one part to each of the heads of the other two quarters, namely Alata and Anarhor.

I also find the following specific facts :?- (a) The Maamobi-Kotobabi-Dzorwulu lands are part of the Osu village or rural lands under the care and control of the head of the Ashanti Blohum quarter namely, the Mankralo (co-defendant). (b) The co-defendant, the Mankralo of Osu, head of the Ashanti Blohum quarter is the sole authority, acting with the consent of his principal elders, to make customary grants of portions of that land to Osu subjects. Any sale or other alienation of any portion of those lands to a stranger made without the consent and concurrence of the Mankralo (co-defendant) is null and void. (c) I also find that Nii Okwei Omaboe was acting Mantse of Osu from 1949 to 1951 only and not after 1951.

I shall now apply the said native custom to the other facts I have found in this case, to enable me to come to a decision in the matter.

The plaintiff is an Osu subject; in fact the Osiahene of the Mankralo stool which is the quarter in charge of the land . By native custom the plaintiff is entitled as of right to occupy any portion of this land which has not already been occupied by a subject. He however, elected to rely for his title, upon a deed of gift allegedly executed in his favour by an alleged acting Mantse.

The deed relied upon was not produced in evidence, the pleadings and the evidence led show that the said deed purports to have been executed in August, 1952 by Nii Okwei Omaboe as acting Osu Mantse. But Nii Okwei Omaboe ceased to act as Osu Mantse in 1951 upon the enstoolment of Nii Noi Dowuona IV, the co-plaintiff. Thus even if the Osu Mantse is entitled by custom to make grant of this land to a subject, the alleged grant would be null and void since it was not made by the Osu Mantse himself, there could not be an acting Mantse when there is a substantive holder of the post.

Again the evidence of Nii Okwei Omaboe about the grant is that the co-defendant was not consulted. Taking that fact with the evidence of custom given by Nii Noi Dowuona IV that the co-defendant has been substantive Mankralo since 1948, and that no valid grant could be made of any portion of this land without reference to the Mankralo, the co-defendant, I am bound to hold that the grant to the plaintiff, either upon the deed of 1952 pleaded, or alleged customary grant of 1948 which was not pleaded, but which was spoken of in evidence, is null and void. The plaintiff therefore acquired no title to that land either by the alleged deed, or the alleged grant by native custom.

I am satisfied that from motives of selfishness and spite, some persons, Nii Okwei Omaboe, foremost among them, have, when it suited their purpose, given false evidence of what the native custom of Osu is to one court or another, and thereby led the courts to give judgments some of which are irreconcilable and conflict with what they know is the custom and land tenure of Osu.

Custom is not a matter of convenience or expediency; it is the manner in which people have regulated their affairs and their relationship from time immemorial. For one man or a group of men to state what they know is not the custom when it suits their convenience to do so, and to adhere to the custom when they find it expedient, is to disorganise society and to bring about serious miscarriage of justice. The courts are not there to be employed through their ignorance of facts, as innocent instruments of oppression and deprivations.

The Mantse, his sub-chiefs ?- the heads of the quarters ?- and the people of Osu generally, are doing great disservice to their town by this attempt to undo one another by corrupting their custom by giving one version of the custom in one case or set of cases, and another version in another case or set of cases. It is about time they came together, to sink their respective prides, and give up unfounded claims, and set their house in order.

[p.234]

Coming back to the evidence in this case I must say that the plaintiff and co-plaintiff put themselves completely out of court with the evidence they themselves led; the plaintiff was wise when, just before the close of the case for the co-plaintiff, he announced that he could not persist with his claim, and would thereafter take no further part in the proceedings.

Upon the evidence, both the plaintiff and co-plaintiff must each fail.

The claims of the plaintiff and of the co-plaintiff are each dismissed.

There will be judgment for the defendant and co-defendant who will have their costs.

JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE-ADOO J.S.C.

Sarkodee-Adoo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. (His lordship stated the pleadings and continued). The crux of the matter was whether the land a portion of which is in dispute in the instant case was attached to the Osu Mankralo's stool or to the Osu Mantse's stool.

In the course of the co-plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff discontinued his claim and the record thereof is in the following terms:

PLAINTIFF: ?-

"At this stage I wish to say that I do not wish to press my claim any further and would take no further part in the proceedings."

Nevertheless it should be observed that the plaintiff had earlier said in his evidence, inter alia,

"In 1948 I applied to the Osu Mantse Nii Noi Owuo for land, he gave it to me and I performed all customary rites in respect of it, but no documents were prepared on that customary grant.

"I had a document made on it for me in 1952 by the then acting Osu Mantse and his elders. As the land is situate at a considerable distance from Osu town, I did not use to visit it frequently. At one time when I went to visit it, I found that some one had cleared it and was about to build upon it. I could not find who it was, and I left message with the labourers whom I met on the land.

"From the information I had I approached Nii Adja Abeblenseh, the head of the Anarhor quarter, and as a result of what he told me I caused my solicitor to write to one Awuletey. He is the defendant. He did not reply to my letter and so I caused writ of summons to be issued against him. After the defendant had been served with the writ of summons he approached me and said he could not proceed with the case. I therefore sent him with one man to accompany him to see my solicitor, Mr. A. G. Heward-Mills. The defendant came back to see me and told me what my solicitor had said. We tried to settle the matter, but the defendant could not comply with my terms.

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. ANOBAH:?-

"No, I have not done anything on this land since 1948 when it was given to me. I have not got the original of the document given to me on that land. No, I did not consult the Mankralo of Osu, the head of the Ashanti Blohum quarter before I got the land. No, that land in dispute is not under the Ashanti Blohum stool, i.e. the Osu Mankralo stool. The land in dispute is part of the [p.235] Maamobi-Kotobabi-Dzorwulu lands of Osu. I deny that Osu man has right to occupy portion of this land not already occupied. It is true that villages on the land are Ashanti Blohum villages, but I say that the land is Osu stool land."

In consequence of the discontinuance, the co-plaintiff who continued with his claim is the sole appellant before the court even though the judgment appealed from dismissed the claims of the plaintiff and the co-plaintiff. At the hearing of the appeal counsel for the respondents referred to the following preliminary objection filed by the co-defendant- respondent:

"That the co-plaintiff-appellant has no locus standi in prosecuting this appeal since if he had any interest or title in the land the subject-matter of the dispute herein he had divested same to the plaintiff who originally brought this action and who in the course of the trial in the court below abandoned his claim and took no further part in the proceedings.?"

However, the objection was withdrawn and accordingly dismissed. In any event if the co-plaintiff-appellant herein had stood by and allowed the defendant and co-defendant-respondent to obtain judgment after the discontinuance by the plaintiff, the Osu stool would have been bound by the result and would be thereby estopped from re-opening the issue as to title or ownership which was involved in the case.

This is in consonance with the principles enunciated in the case of Marbell v. Akwei (14 W.A.C.A. 143) where it was held:

"The appellant was vitally interested in the previous case between the respondent and a person to whom he, the appellant, had conveyed, as the validity of the title he had conveyed was in issue in that case; instead of applying to be joined as a defendant in that case, he was content to stand by and see his battle fought by that person in the same interest; he was therefore bound by the result in that case and estopped from re-opening the issue determined in that case ".

Consequently, the co-plaintiff as representative of the Osu stool was justified in prosecuting his claim after the discontinuance by the plaintiff; and being dissatisfied with, and aggrieved by, the judgment was entitled to appeal therefrom.

Referring to the joinder of the Mankralo of Osu and the Osu Mantse in his judgment, the learned trial judge said, inter alia:

"With the joinder of those holders of high traditional office in Osu, lands far bigger than the one described in the plaintiff's writ of summons were brought into the dispute and very important issues of custom and land tenure of Osu were raised, between those two stools.

"Although by his statement of defence the co-defendant pleaded absolute ownership of a large area of lands of which the one in dispute forms a part, he admitted in the course of his evidence [p.236] that those lands to which he claims absolute ownership are part of Osu stool lands.

"With that admission it became common ground between the parties that: ?-

"1. The land in respect of which the plaintiff sued is part of the Maamobi-Kotobabi-Dzorwulu lands, and

"2. Those lands are part of Osu stool lands?".

With these findings we wholly agree, and hold that the Osu Mantse co-plaintiff-appellant as occupant of the Osu stool is the proper person entitled to sue and be sued in respect of lands title to which is vested in Osu stool.

The co-defendant however had claimed the said Maamobi-Kotobabi Dzorwulu lands as property attached to his stool on the ground that the Osu subjects in the villages on the said lands hail from the Ashanti Blohum quarter.

The evidence establishes that there are four quarters in the Osu division of the Ga State, namely, Kinkawe, Ashanti Blohum, Anahor and Alata. Each quarter is under the control of a headman with his elders all of whom are under the Osu Mantse. These quarters are within the town of Osu, and there are three categories of lands known as follows:-

1. Quarter land which is land within the quarter of the town.

2. Outskirts land which is land immediately adjacent to or contiguous to a quarter.

3. Rural land which is all other Osu stool lands which are neither quarter nor outskirts lands.

In the present case, the importance of the following evidence cannot be over-emphasised.

Nii Okwei Omaboe in the course of his evidence said, inter alia:

"I am Osiahene to the Osu stool and I live at Christiansborg. As Osiahene I know the custom relating to tenure of Osu stool lands. When the Osu stool is vacant I am the person who by custom acts as Mantse. Yes I remember that in 1948 you (plaintiff) applied to the Osu Mantse, myself and the Klote Wulomo for land and we deputed people who went and demarcated that land to you. I was one of the people who went to demarcate the land. There was nothing on the land at the time. The area was at that time only a farming area it was not a building area. In 1952, I was acting Mantse of Osu, I began to act in 1949. Yes, you applied to me for a document on the land in 1952 while I was acting as Osu Manste and I gave you.

"The land I gave you is portion of Osu stool land. I say it is Osu stool land because the land to the east of it has been granted by the stool to Government, that north of it is the Achimota Forest Reserve also granted by the stool, and recently in about 1952-53 the stool granted portion to Government for railway transshipment [p.237] shed. In 1950 the Gbese stool and Korlewebii claimed the area in Kokomlemle cases; we heard of it and we also joined and we got judgment that all those villages are Osu stool villages. We started giving these lands to Government in 1929. No quarter has disputed our right to make the grants. We also granted the Pig Farm to the Army".

CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. KORANTENG ADDOW:?-

"Yes, I know a lot about land tenure of Osu. Yes, I know what are called outskirt lands or building lands. Outskirt lands are just 100 feet from the last building in a quarter. Such lands can be granted only by the heads and elders of the quarters to subjects and without reference to the Osu stool; but never by the stool itself.

"Any subject of the Osu stool can without express grant occupy and build on any portion of the Osu stool land which is not outskirt land, not already occupied by another subject or grantee of the stool. But he cannot sell the portion he so occupies without the consent of the Osu stool. When an original occupier of Osu stool land dies his children or his successors succeed to the land. The Kotobabi-Maamobi - Dzorwulu lands are general stool lands, not outskirts lands. A subject occupying a stool land cannot alienate land adjoining the portion of that land he occupies.?"

Nii Noi Dowuona IV, co-plaintiff, in the course of his evidence said, inter alia:

"I am the Mantse of Osu, and consequently the head of the Osu division of the Ga State. The land in dispute is one within the control of the Osu Mantse. It is situated at Maamobi-Kotobabi. It is bounded on the north by the Achimota-Cantonments Road, measuring on that side, 400 feet, on the west by Government land measuring 600 feet on that side, on the south by Osu stool land, measuring 400 feet and on the east by Osu stool land and Nortey Kwao's land, measuring 600 feet.

?"The Maamobi-Kotobabi area was a farming area for the servants of the Osu Mantsemei. Occupation of this area began before the Katamanso War about 1826. The servants of the Osu stool finally settled on the land, previously they used to go and farm and then come back home. When they finally settled on the land, the servants farmed it and reared sheep and other animals', for the service of the Osu Mantsemei and the Osu Stool.?"

"The administration of Osu township in the matter of control of land is as follows: ?-

"The head of each quarter is allowed to expand his quarter in certain directions, and to develop them. There is a limit to the privilege of the head of the quarter for the expansion, development and extension of the quarter. This applies to the old township. In the village of Maamobi and Kotobabi which we know to be village lands this limitation of extension and expansion does not strictly [p.238] apply. In this village any subject of the Osu stool be he from the Osu Mantse's quarter, from the Mankralo's quarter, the Anarhor Onukpa's quarter is allowed free settlement anywhere in the village. The Osu stool and its elders, as the value of land has become very important, have now decided that they themselves will help in developing the place.

"The Osu stool takes the lead in this matter and as the area now falls within what we called Osu stool lands, the stool now grants portions in the usual way to stool subjects. This area in dispute is within the area we call Osu stool land, so the right to grant lands in a formal way rests with the Osu Mantse. This land granted to the plaintiff was granted by the Osu Mantse, in other words, the Osu Stool."

The co-defendant-respondent in the course of his evidence in answer to the court, said:

"By custom the Osu stool is entitled to a share of any profits or anything which comes to me from the land. The same applies to the other quarters. But for sometime now I have not been giving him share out of the profits from the lands under the control of my quarter.?"

On the authorities it is well established that the Osu Mantse is the proper authority to grant Osu stool lands. To this general principle, however, is the qualified exception in respect of quarter lands and outskirt lands attached to these quarters in respect of which he cannot make a valid grant without prior consultation with the head and elders of the quarter concerned.

The learned trial judge in the course of his judgment made the following remarks:

"I am satisfied that from motives of selfishness and spite, some persons, Nii Okwei Omaboe, foremost among them, have, when it suited their purpose, given false evidence of what the native custom of Osu is to one court or another, and thereby led the courts to give judgments some of which are irreconcilable and conflict with what they know is the custom and land tenure of Osu.

"Custom is not a matter of convenience or expediency; it is the manner in which people have regulated their affairs and their relationship from time immemorial. For one man or a group of men to state what they know is not the custom when it suits their convenience to do so, and to adhere to the custom when they find it expedient, is to disorganise society and to bring about serious miscarriage of justice. The courts are not there to be employed, through their ignorance of facts, as innocent instruments of oppression and deprivations.

"The Mantse, his sub-chiefs ?- the heads of the quarters ?- and the people of Osu generally, are doing great disservice to their town by this attempt to undo one another by corrupting their custom by giving one version of the custom in one case or set of cases, and another version in another case or set of cases. It is about time they came [p.239] together, to sink their respective prides, and give up unfounded claims, and set their house in order."

In view of the remarks quoted above we have carefully studied the evidence adduced in this case and closely examined the same in the light of decisions of the Appeal Court based on undisputed evidence accepted by this court with respect to Osu custom of land tenure and the right of the Osu Mantse and quarter headmen relating to transfer of title to Osu stool lands, including town, outskirt and rural.

We are not in a position to say what foundation there might be for these very strong remarks the learned trial judge has made against Nii Okwei Omaboe and others who are said to have given false evidence of customary law in some cases not before the court. We have, however, found nothing in this record of appeal to justify those remarks.

In order to justify such a statement it was incumbent on the learned trial judge to have caused to be produced certified copies of the evidence of the witness in previous cases and for him to be given the opportunity to explain whatever may appear on the record to be contradictory to his evidence before the court. As it happened in this case the evidence of Nii Okwei Omaboe agrees materially with the Osu custom as to land tenure and the rights of the Osu Mantse and his elders including the quarter headmen to make grants.

We may here give a rsum of the judgments of the West African Court of Appeal and of the Ghana Court of Appeal which in our view have clearly enunciated the principles relating to alienation of Osu stool lands including portions thereof known as quarter, outskirt and rural lands.

In the case of Aryee and Others v. Adofoley, (13 W.A.C.A. 161) the plaintiffs acquired, what is termed outskirt land from the head and elders of the Alata quarter of the Osu stool. Subsequently the Osu Mantse granted the land to the defendant without the consent of, or without consultation with the head and elders of the Alata quarter. Blackhall, P., in delivering the judgment of the court said, inter alia, (at p. 163).

"After a full consideration of the authorities quoted it seems to me that under Christiansborg customary law the position as to 'outskirt land' is this: Where unalienated land is in the charge of the head and elders of a quarter the Osu Mantse may not grant any part of such land without prior consultation with the head and elders of the quarter. I think that the Native Court went too far in stating that the consent and approval of the subordinate chief and his elders must be obtained.

"The final decision in my opinion rests with the Osu Mantse and his elders, for the fact that unalienated land of the Osu stool is by custom placed in charge of the several Quarters does not alter its fundamental character, or derogate from the right of the Osu Mantse and his elders to dispose of any part of it that has not already been alienated by the Quarter head and elders. But the Osu Mantse may not do so until the heads and elders of the Quarter concerned have been afforded an opportunity of putting forward any objection they may [p.240] have to the proposed grant, and the customary way of doing this is to hold a meeting of those concerned."

In the case of Nii Bonne III v. Hammond and Others, (14 W.A.C.A. 492) an acquisition of land north of the Alata Quarter, referred to as the "R.E. Acquisition" case, the question how far quarter land could extend was raised and answered. Windsor-Aubrey, J., in the course of the judgment of the court, said (at p. 494):

"This court pointed out to counsel that if his contention was correct there were no limits whatsoever to the distance Northwards to which a Quarter could extend its area and that a Quarter could acquire land which was not contiguous to the area occupied by it. Counsel was not able to refute this suggestion.

The learned trial Judge dealt very fully with this aspect of the case, and I am of the opinion that he correctly held and that there was sufficient evidence of custom to support his findings: ?-

(1) that until land is allotted to a Quarter by the Osu Stool it remains the property of the Osu Stool;

(2) that members of a Quarter may, however, extend their Quarter by building on the land adjacent to or attached to a Quarter up to a distance of about 80-100 feet of existing buildings. Such land the learned trial Judge described as outskirt land.

The land acquired is not contiguous to the Alata Quarter and cannot possibly be described as outskirt land, and was therefore the property of the Osu Stool and lawfully granted by that Stool to the claimants-respondents."

In the recent case of Kwami v. Quaynor ([1959] G.L.R.269 at p. 273) the above-mentioned cases were referred to, and the judgment appealed from was confirmed on the ground that: ?-

"In the instant case, the learned trial-Judge found as a fact, not only upon the evidence led before him in Court, but also from a visit to the area by the Court, that the land which is the subject-matter in this case is a developed area, is contiguous to Alata Quarter and forms part of that Quarter. He found himself able to deal with the case on that footing. Even if the learned Judge had found the disputed land to be ?'outskirt?' land, as far as it is not an unalienated land the Osu Mantse has no authority to deal with it. And even if it were 'outskirt' land in charge of the head and elders of Alata Quarter, unalienated or undeveloped, the Osu Mantse could not make a valid grant (as he purported to do in this case) without prior consolation with the head and elders of that Quarter".

The custom by which caretakers or quarter headmen are allowed to grant permission to natives of their quarter to occupy land within the quarter or adjacent thereto may have led to a misunderstanding when translated into English and thereby resulted in the confusion in the minds of some of the people as to the meaning of the native word authorising the headmen to grant such permission. [p.241]

It will be observed that practically in all the cases reported parties have alleged what they describe as a native grant and then years afterwards stated that such grant had been confirmed by a deed. It is obvious that such a native grant not being a grant under English law or evidenced by a document in accordance with the English principles of conveyancing could not have contained such terms of limitation as are usually contained in a deed of conveyance.

This can be gathered from the evidence of witnesses in this case to the effect that Osu subjects to whom grants of land within the quarter may have been made by the quarter headman cannot alienate such lands to strangers (i.e. non-Osu people) except by deed executed by the Osu Mantse.

In these circumstances we are satisfied that the learned trial judge erred in the conclusions he reached.

The land in dispute is neither quarter land nor outskirts land adjacent or contiguous to the Ashanti Blohum quarter but it is Osu stool rural land which the Osu Mantse and his elders including the quarter headmen could grant.

We allow the appeal, and set aside the judgment appealed from including the order as to costs. Judgment should be entered for the co-plaintiff-appellant on his claim as occupant of the Osu stool for a declaration that the land in dispute as described and bounded in the writ of summons is a portion of Osu stool rural lands. The costs of the appellant in this court are fixed at G60 2s. 9d. The appellant will also have his costs in the trial court, such costs to be taxed; any costs paid in pursuance of the order as to costs should be refunded.

Decision

Appeal allowed

Plaintiff / Appellant

Danquah

Defendant / Respondent

Jones (with him Arthur)

Referals

(1) Marbell v. Akwei 14 W.A.C.A. 143.

(2) Aryee and Others v. Adofoley 13 W.A.C.A. 161.

(3 Nii Bonne III v. Hammond and Others 14 W.A.C.A. 492.

(4) Kwami v. Quaynor [1959] G.L.R. 269.

Warning: fopen(/home/ghanalegal/domains/ghanalegal.com/public_html/cases/public/cache/a50e5451c15e10c92e3e4cb3870cbd1d): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ghanalegal.com/public_html/cases/apps/modules/render/models/cache.php on line 44 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ghanalegal.com/public_html/cases/apps/modules/render/models/cache.php on line 46 Warning: fclose() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/ghanalegal/domains/ghanalegal.com/public_html/cases/apps/modules/render/models/cache.php on line 48