A paramount chief may be entitled to a customary share of proceeds from land alienated by subordinate chiefs even without ownership of the land. An arbitration award declaring a right to an account is enforceable, even if the specific accounting is left for subsequent inquiry.

Lord Tomlin:-

This is an appeal from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal which dismissed an appeal from the Chief Justice of the Gold Coast Colony, who had refused an application to set aside an award in favour of the respondents made by Hall, J., of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, sitting as an arbitrator. The facts which give rise to this appeal are of this nature: There is a province, or kingdom, in the Gold Coast Colony called Abuakwa. The ruler of that province who holds the title of Omanhene, and who occupies the throne or stool of that province, has under him some fourteen subordinate chiefs, the province being divided into fourteen divisions. Each of those chiefs is the Ohene of his particular division. Some of the divisions have, or, at any rate, one of them has, further subdivisions, each of which is ruled in its turn by a still more subordinate chief, known as the Odikro. One of the fourteen divisions of Abuakwa is Asamangkese, and Asamangkese has a subdivision known as Akwatia, and it is the Ohene of Asamangkese, and the Odikro of Akwatia who are the appellants before their Lordships, the respondent being the chief of the whole Province of Abuakwa, the Omanhene of Abuakwa.

The nature of the dispute between the parties which led to the arbitration is that the Omanhene, the respondent, claimed what may be called, for this purpose, by the neutral term of tribute from the appellants, and that that claim was disputed. The particular matter which made the question critical was that in recent years, after the discovery of gold and other minerals, and diamonds, in the territory, the appellants, from time to time, alienated part of the lands of their stools, to concessionnaires who desired to seek for minerals in the territory, and the respondent, as chief of the whole province, claimed a share in the proceeds of such alienation. Eventually a submission was framed upon which the award was made. The parties failed to present to the arbitrator specified issues for him to deal with; each of them put in a number of claims, and the arbitrator dealt with the matter on the basis of those claims. Such claims are all to be found in the Record at pp. 6, 7 and 8. The parties also agreed as part of the submission certain terms as to the procedure by which the arbitrator was to be governed and those terms included a provision in these words:

“The arbitrator may moreover seek, obtain and act upon any information whatsoever in respect of the matters in difference between the parties thereto in relation to the said matters in dispute as he in his respective and unfettered judgment should think most advisable, and should deem best applicable to the nature and circumstances of the case, any rule of law relating to the tendering, giving, reception or rejection of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Provided always that if the arbitrator should at any time in his respective discretion so determine, the evidence to be given before him should be given upon oath or affirmation.”

In fact, the evidence before the arbitrator consisted partly of documentary evidence, and partly of oral evidence, and the arbitrator in his award has stated that he regarded the documentary evidence as of more weight than the oral evidence for the purpose of determining the questions which were raised before him. His award is a document of considerable length, and, in the course of it, he discusses all the material which was placed before him, and sums up his conclusions, which are to be found at p. 85 of the Record. There are, in all, fourteen conclusions. The first three deal with the relations between the Stool of Abuakwa and the sub-stools of Asamangkese and Akwatia, and nothing turns on them. They are constitutional points on which no argument is raised before their Lordships. Conclusion 4 deals with the meaning of a phrase describing in part the relations between the rulers, and the arbitrator says that he has not enough material to enable him to