Case 1: KOTEI v.
ASARE
FACTS
Charles Danso who acquired a piece of land at Laterbiokorshie, Accra from the Alata stool of
James town by a conveyance dated 20th March, 1956 registered the conveyance in 1959.
The grant was made to him in a representative capacity for himself and members of his family.
Mr. Danso, without the knowledge and consent of the principal members of his family conveyed
the land by a deed to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff went to the land, she found the defendant in
possession. The defendant had bought the land from a Madam Adorkor who had acquired it from
the sempe stool by a conveyance dated 4th October, 1952 and registered in 1958. Both the Alata
and sempe stools are substools of the James Town stool.
HELD
1. There are 3 substools to the James Town stool: Alata, Sempe and Akumadjey. Any area of
James Town stoll lands occupied exclusively or predominantly by the subjects or grantees of a
particular substool belongs to that substool.
2. On the evidence especially in relation to lands close to the one in dispute, the disputed land
belongs to the Sempe stool which as opposed to the Alata stool, had a better right to convey it.
Madam Adorkor, the defendant’s vendor, got a better title to the land than the plaintiff’s vendor,
Charles Danso.
3. Besides, the conveyance to the defendant’s vendor was not only prior in time, but registered
earlier than the conveyance to the plaintiff’s vendor.
4. By virtue of the fact that the land was family property, its transfer by Charles Danso to the
plaintiff without the consent of the principal members of his family, is ineffective ie ineffective
is null and void ab initio.
Case 2 : MECHANICAL LLOYD v NARTEY
FACTS
The village of Frafraha formed part of the La Stool rural lands acquired by the Las Stool through
conquest. It was subsequently settled by members of the Agbawe quarter of La whose overall head was
the Atototse (A). “0” was the Frafraha Mantse and both were illiterates. In 1976, “0” with purported
consent of elders granted land go Nartey (appellant) for farming and a document was executed and
registered. He went into occupation. Subsequently, the La Stool granted the respondent-co. land which
was inclusive of the earlier granted land. A document was executed but not registered. Later, on
learning from “0” that the Frafraha Lands were owned by the agbawe quarter and not the La stool, the
respondent-co. obtained another grant of the same plot from both “A” and “0” who jointly executed a
document that was registered. They then went on the land and following their refusal to vacate, the
appellant brought action against them for declaration of title to land and damages for trespass.
The trial judge found for the appellant saying that the Agbawe family had always had the right to
alienate Frafraha land and although the La stool had been adjudged owners, the stool had never
exercised that right.
The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. On appeal by appellant to the Supreme Court
HELD (allowing appeal)
The fact that the La Mantse was the proper authority to alienate or grant portions of La Stool lands
could not be disputed but was a qualified general.
On evidence, none of the contesting parties had a better or proper grant from the La stool.
Consequently, the issue for resolution was which of them had a better claim to possession against the
whole world save the true owner.
By the mandatory provisions of section 25 (1) of the Land Registery Act 1962 (Act 122), the registration
of a deed of sale constituted actual notice of the fact of registration to the whole world.
Since the plaintiff-appellants grant was first in time and stamped and registerdd, the defs who had no
better grant than the plaintiff from the La Mantse could not claim to dispossess the plaintiff simply on
the ground that the plaintiff never had a grant from the La Mantse.
The La Stool had by its inaction (deliberate omission/failure to assert ownership thereby leading the
general public to believe that the Agbawe family were the owners) led to the belief that it had no
objection to conveyances made by the agbawe family. Following the La Stool’s inaction/acquiesce they
were estopped by conduct from impugning the appellants title which had been perfected by registration
and possessory acts.
The conveyance made jointly by “0” and “A” to the respondent-co. was not valid because on evidence, it
was not explained to 0 an illiterate in contravention of section 4 (1) of the Illiterate’s Protection
Ordinance.
Case 3: MENSAH v BLOW
FACTS
The original owner of the land in dispute was the appellant’s successor who cleared the land of virgin
forest. This ancestor then permitted or licensed the respondent’s ancestors and followers to occupy the
land. During this long period of occupation, no tribute of tolls were demanded or paid and occupation
was permitted subject to good behaviour.
ISSUE—Which of the 2 parties had the exclusive right to own or possess the land in question: the
respondent submitted that she was now entitled to dispossess the appellant because of the long,
uninterrupted possession that had been enjoyed by herself and her ancestors.
HELD—(allowing appeal)
1. Customary law regarded the respondent’s ancestors as licensees of the appellant’s ancestors. There
was no interest or estate in the land in a licensee who had a right to use the land equally with the
grantors. Throughout this period of occupation, the licensee had a present right of possession and user
over any portion of the grantor’s land where the right of the grantor was not ousted. The granting of the
license without paying tribute or tolls was not to be regarded as a surrender of all claims or rights in the
land
2. A licensee did not in the course of time become an absolute owner of land to the extent of depriving
the real owner of the right of user over unoccupied portions of the land. Because the appellant’s
ancestors originally cleared the land and did not subsequently abandon it, customary law and practice
enjoined the respondent to give way to the appellant as the right full owner.
OBITER-
Had the respondent been able to establish that (1) her ancestors were the 1st to cultivate the land OR
(2) that although it was the appellant’s ancestors who had 1st cleared the virgin forest, they had
subsequently abandoned it, then she might well have been entitled to claim possession against the
appellant.
Case 4 : KAKRA v AMPOFOAH
FACTS
The disputed stool land was cultivated by the defendant’s late father subject to payment of yearly
tolls to the stool representative. According to custom, his successor was one Foster, but as a
result of litigation the successor apportioned part of the deceased’s property to the children
including the disputed land including the burden of yearly tolls. The stool thus applied to the
children for assistance in servicing a stool debt unconnected with the litigation which they
refused. The stool subsequently increased the toll which they also refused to pay, & they brought
an action to compel the children to accept the new rate & also that a portion of the land
previously farmed by strangers had reverted to the stool.
HELD
The strangers were labourers for the defendants’ late father, thus the land was still his. With
respect to the toll, the stool cannot vary the agreement made with the defendants’ late father.
Case 5 : REPUBLIC v REGIONAL LANDS OFFICER
FACTS
Case 6: TETTEY v AMENI-QUARSHIE & AGYEI
FACTS
Case 7 : ANTIE & ODJUWAH v AGBO
FACTS
