Yaw Akyirefie Of Esiam V. The Paramount Stool Of Breman-esiam Per Nana Kwa Bom III (1951)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Stool family land pledged to a member of the family—Subsequent redemption from successor of the pledge by another member of family—Claim by redeemer that he was the owner of the property—Power of Appeal Court to amend title to the suit—Jurisdiction of native trial court challenged on grounds that Presidentand his linguist were members of plaintiff’s paramount Stool.

Facts

The plaintiffs instituted their action under the title of the paramount Stool of Breman-Esiam per Nana Kwa Bom III, calling upon the defendant to establish his claim to a personal interest in the land in dispute.

The evidence in the native Court established that the occupant of the paramount Stool of Breman-Esiam is elected from the Nsona Stool family. The claim was, in effect, a claim by and on behalf of the Nsona Stool family and not on behalf of the paramount Stool of Breman-Esiam.

One Kwesi Nyarku, at the time when he was the senior member of the Nsona Stool family, pledged,the land to one Kobina Essenyi, also a member of the same family, who later became the paramount chief of Breman-Esiam. Essenyi was succeeded by his nephew Amangu, from whom the defendant, a member of the same family, redeemed the land. The appellant alleged that he had redeemed the land for himself and thereafter asserted ownership. Appellant’s counsel also argued that the Native Court ” B ” had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the President wag a sub-chief of the plaintiff, and the linguist who sat on the panel was an officer of the plaintiff’s paramount Stool.

Held

The members of the family having not been made distinctly to understand that the appellant was redeeming on his own behalf, the land remained the property of the family Stool and, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and to settle finally the matter in controversy, the title of the suit should be amended.

Held further: The members of the panel of the Native Court, although connected with the paramount Stool, had no personal interest in the land of the Stool family, on whose behalf the suit was really instituted. Accordingly they were not debarred from sitting on the Native Court.

Appeal dismissed.