Yaw Asuah V. Essi Egyirwah & Ors (1954)

Jurisdiction—Supreme Court—Administration suit—Ownership of land. Estoppel—Judgment ultra vires—Person neither party nor privy informer case. Evidence—Extrinsic evidence to explain nature of transaction and relationship of parties.

Facts

In the Gold Coast an administration suit in the Supreme Court is confined to personal property; and the jurisdiction to decide on land ownership is conferred on the Native Courts.

After the death of K.S. his widow and her children sued his successor in the Supreme Court calling upon him to account for the proceeds of the deceased’s farms (which included the farms involved in the present appeal) and obtained an order.

The above appellant for his family sued the defendants (above respondents) in the Native Court claiming ownership of two parcels of land and the farms thereon, and the issue before the Native Court was whether they were the property of one K.E. deceased or the self-acquired property of K.S. (mentioned in the preceding paragraph). The defendantsrelied on the order in the administration suit, but the Native Court held that the plaintiff was not concerned with it.

The other point related to a conveyance purporting to convey one of the parcels of land to K.S. The Native Court admitted evidence showing that it was in truth bought by K.E.

The Native Court gave judgment for the plaintiff; the defendants appealed to the Land Court. The Judge treated the order in the administration suit as estoppel and held that the extrinsic evidence on the conveyance ought not to have been heard. He reversed the Native Court, and the plaintiff appealed.

Held

The order in the administration suit could not operate as estoppel because (a) administration suits in the Supreme Court are confined to personal property, and the jurisdiction to decide on land ownership is conferred by statute on the Native Courts, and (b) the present appellant was neither a party nor privy in that suit.

Held also: Oral evidence is admissible to explain the true nature of a transaction and the relationship of the parties; it was for that purpose that evidence on the conveyance was admitted in the Native Court.

Appeal allowed: judgment of Native Court restored.