SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1948 Supreme(SC) 54

Privy Council At West Africa
Sir Madhavan Nair, Lord Macdermott, Justice Lord Simonds, JJ.
Nkwantahene Nana Kwame Boakye Tromu II -Appellant
Versus
Bechemhene Nana Fosu Gyeabour II -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 50 of 1944
Decided On : 05-07-1948

Advocates Appeared:
Sawbridge and Co., Sole, A.L. Bryden and Co., Frank Gahan, T.B.W. Ramsay, C.S. Rewcastle

The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the 1913 agreement and its application to the disputed land.

Headnote:

ownership - land dispute - 1913 agreement - Boundary Book - interpretation of the 1913 agreement

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a tract of land in the Crown Colony of Ashanti between the Stool of Nkwanta and the Stool of Bechem. The dispute centered around the interpretation of the 1913 agreement, which had previously settled a boundary dispute between the parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the 1913 agreement did not apply to or fix any boundary in respect of the parcel in question, and therefore, the decision of the 'B' Court should not have been disturbed.

Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the 1913 agreement and whether it applied to the disputed parcel of land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the 1913 agreement and its application to the specific parcel in dispute.

Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of the West African Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal, with the appellant being ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Lord Macdermott.-

The matter for determination in this appeal is the ownership of a tract of land in the Crown Colony of Ashanti which is claimed by the plaintiff and appellant on behalf of the Stcol of Nkwanta and by the defendant and respondent on behalf of the Stool of Bechem. The parcel in dispute is shown edged in yellow on the map prepared by Mr. Ernest S. S. Wood, a licensed surveyor, which is exhibit "B. I." Its boundary on the south-east is portion of a river line which traverses the district and flows from north-east to south-west. Going downstream this line is formed as follows: the Buakukruwa (Obukruwa) to where it joins the Adrenko (Adingkra), the Adrenko to where it joins the Bua (Boa), the Bua to where it joins the Kwaso (Kosu) and then the Kwaso. Above the confluence of the Bua and the Kwaso (hereinafter called the river junction) this line crosses the Kumasi road. The south-eastern boundary of the parcel in question starts at or near the river junction and runs downstream along the course of the Kwaso. The parcel thus lies on the right or north-west bank of the Kwaso. Its north-east boundary runs north-west from the river junction and does not follow any natural feature. The boundaries on the north-west and south-west follow an irregular course which eventually reaches the Kwaso again near the south-western corner of the parcel.

[2] Above the river junction the river line just described forms the boundary between the Nkwanta land to the north-west of it and the Bechem land to the south-east. That was determined in 1913 in the course of an earlier dispute between the parties. The present controversy turns on whether the river line below the river junction (that is to say the Kwaso from its confluence with the Bua) is also the boundary between the rival claimants. The appellant says that it is. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that this part of the river line flows through the Bechem land with the area in dispute on one side and the remainder of the Bechem territory on the other.

[3] The earlier dispute to which reference has just been made was settled by an agreement in writing made by the representatives of both Stools on 22nd May 1913, before District Commissioner A. W. Norris. The material portions of this document, which will be spoken of as the 1913 agreement, read as follows :

"1. The boundary between Bechem and Nkwanta to be the thalweg of the Obukruwa-su to where it joins the Adinkra-su thence to the Boa-su following the thalweg of the Boa to the point where the Kosu joins it.

Bechem people to have full use of all farms and hunting Huts at present used by them on Nkwanta land without tribute from any rubber or cocoa grown or manufactured on that land.

2. The only claim Nkwanta reserves is - if any gold or other mineral is found thereon, or a concession of any sort granted."

[4] It would appear that this settlement was reached after the dispute had been investigated by District Commissioner T. E. Fell and his note, dated 17th April 1913, of the parties' statements was put in evidence as an annexure to the 1913 agreement. No objection was taken to the admissibility of this note which runs thus:

"Chief of Nkwanta v. Chief of Bechem. - Claims land from where Obuokrukrua river crosses the Kumasi Road till it joins the Kosu River.

Nkwanta - Obuokrukrua river after crossing the road flows to Adinkra river, then flows to Boa river and then to Kosu river. The land on the right bank is mine given by the Chief Commissioner in 1906. The Boa river joins the Kosn river near to Kosu village: There are three camps on this land : - They are called Adesua, Yao Kokwa Esuboi. Anwiafutu.

The last camp was made by Kosu people-long ago- before the rubber trade.

They are Bechem people and made the camp for hunting. I take the leg of the game.

When the rubber came I did not claim rubber tribute from them. The dispute started with the building of Yao Anto's village. He took plantain trees to plant at his village and Bechem people





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top