1. The trial court's findings of fact should not be lightly reversed; evidence from site inspections and possession of farms can corroborate oral testimony. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1939 Supreme(SC) 7
Privy Council At West African
Sir George Rankin, Lord Porter, Justice Lord Romer, JJ.
Nana Akpandja -Appellant
Versus
Fiaga Egblomesse -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No.56 of 1937
Decided On : 14-02-1939
Advocates Appeared:
Sydney Redney Redfern & Co., Crisp & Co., Morries, Ashurst, W. H. Stoker, J.B.W. Ramsay
Sydney Redney Redfern & Co., Crisp & Co., Morries, Ashurst, W. H. Stoker, J.B.W. Ramsay
Appellate courts should rarely reverse trial court findings of fact based on site inspections and witness testimony. Government maps are prima facie admissible but not authoritative if their accuracy is unproven or if admitting them would cause undue hardship via retrial.
Headnote:(A) Supreme Court Ordinance - Schedule 1, Order 6, Rule 14 - Admissibility of maps made under government authority - Maps made under the authority of any Government or public municipal authority and not for any litigated question shall prima facie be deemed correct and shall be admitted in evidence without further proof.
(B) Appeal - Findings of fact - An appellate court ought to be very chary of reversing a trial court's finding of fact, particularly when the question is one of fact and is essentially for the determination of a tribunal which has seen the witnesses and inspected the locus in quo.
(C) Evidence - Site inspection - A trial court is entitled to take into account physical circumstances observed during a site inspection, such as the existence of boundary markers or the possession of farms, as corroboration of oral evidence provided during the trial.
(D) Evidence - Government maps - A government map may be refused admission on appeal if its accuracy is not established, the source of its information is unclear, and its admission would unfairly necessitate a retrial at the expense of the appellant.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between two traditional leaders over the ownership of a tract of land. Both parties claimed original ownership and subsequent recovery of the land through conquest. The trial court, after hearing conflicting traditional evidence and inspecting the land, divided the territory between the parties based on observed possession and physical markers. The decision was subsequently challenged on the grounds that the trial judge relied on unsworn testimony during the inspection and that a government map discovered after the trial indicated a different boundary.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial judge was justified in relying on the site inspection to corroborate evidence, especially since no objection was raised during the proceedings. Regarding the newly discovered government map, the court found it lacked sufficient evidence of accuracy and authority to override the trial court's findings.
Issues: Whether the trial court's reliance on site observations and unsworn testimony during inspection was improper, and whether a government map discovered post-trial should be admitted as evidence on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court should not substitute its view for that of a trial court on questions of fact where the trial court has inspected the locus in quo and heard witnesses. Physical evidence found during inspection, such as boundary markers and farm possession, can corroborate oral testimony. A government map is not authoritative if its accuracy is not proven and its admission would unfairly necessitate a retrial.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Can a trial judge rely on observations made during a site inspection to corroborate evidence?
Yes, a trial judge may use site inspections to find physical evidence, such as boundary markers or the possession of farms, to corroborate oral testimony provided during the trial. (Para 1 )
3. Under what conditions are government maps admissible and authoritative in land disputes?
While maps made under government authority may be prima facie correct, their authority depends on the reliability of the sources and informants used to create them; if accuracy is not proven, they may be rejected. (Para 2 )
Lord Porter:-
The appellant and respondent who are concerned in the dispute which their Lordships have to consider are the chiefs of certain districts in Togoland. The appellant is the paramount chief of Buem Borada which is in the part of Togoland under British mandate whilst the respondent is the chief of Akposso Badu which is in the portion of Togoland under French Mandate. The dispute concerns the ownership of certain lands approximately 15 square miles in extent situated on the British side of the international boundary between the French and British mandated territory. The dispute also extends to land on the French side of the boundary, but that portion is not subject to British jurisdiction and is not the subject-matter of appeal. The case has already been the subject of three decisions-firstly, before the Assistant District Commissioner, who found that each party was entitled to about half of the land in dispute; secondly, before the Acting Commissioner of the Eastern Provinces who decided in favour of the appellant, and thirdly, before the West African Court of Appeal, who restored the judgment of the Acting District Commissioner. From that decision the appellant appeals to His Majesty in Council.
Substantially the appellant's case is that the land in dispute was originally his, that many years ago a tribe called the Kwawus applied to his predecessors for leave to settle on it; that they gave permission, that the Kwawus came and increased so much in power that they wished the appellant's subjects the Akpandja to serve them; that two battles took place-in the first the Kwawus were victorious with the help of the Ashanti, that the Akpossos gave no help but that both the Akpandja and the Akpossos had to pay tribute to the Ashanti as a result of their victory. Later in a second battle the Akpandja were victorious, and having driven out the Kwawus re-took possession of the disputed territory and retained it ever since. The Akpossos had once, he said, been subordinate to the Akpandja but had ceased to be so, and had taken no part in either battle, or given any help, or made any payment except through him to the Ashanti by way of tribute. The respondent also spoke of the fighting with the Kwawus and Ashanti. Both were agreed that it took place before the Germans came, i.e., more than 55 years ago. He also said that the respondent's subjects had been subordinate to the appellant's people but had ceased to be so; that the land was originally theirs that it was they who granted it to the Kwawus, that the battles with them and the Ashanti did indeed take place, but that the Akpossos took part in the struggle and assisted in defeating the enemy. He agreed that, as the Akpandja had joined with his people and helped to reclaim the land, they ought to have received a share of the recovered territory, but said that the appellant's predecessor agreed that it was a long way for him to go and therefore sold the land in exchange for a quantity of men, sheep and cloths. He accordingly claimed the whole.
The respondent who was plaintiff in the original action was represented by his son and the appellant by his second linguist. In addition to the respective representatives the respondent called five witnesses and the appellant four. After hearing the evidence the Acting District Commissioner proceeded to inspect the land in question, and after doing so gave his judgment, dividing the land between the two chiefs. To this judgment he attached a sketch map, which though it does not purport to be accurately drawn, gives a sufficient picture of the land in dispute. The eastern portion, being in French territory, cannot be exactly defined, but the other boundaries consist of the Kadibenum River on the north, the path from Kadjabi to Ahamansu on the west and the River Menu on the south. The whole of this country was claimed by the respondent, whilst the appellant maintained that it was his and that the boundary between the two chieftains was at Aboto
