KUMA V. KUMA (PC)

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

KWAMINA KUMA

V.

KOFI KUMA

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1938

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO 21 OF 1936

2PLR/1939/7 (PC)

–

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1939/7 (PC)

(1938) P.C. 21/1936

(1938) V WACA PP. 4 – 9

LEX (1936) – P.C. 21/1936

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS

LORD ATKIN

LORD PORTER

SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON

–

BETWEEN:

KWAMINA KUMA – Appellant

AND

KOFI KUMA – Respondent

–

ORIGINATING COURT(S)

Appeal from the West African Court of Appeal reversing the Judgment of the Divisional Court, Cape Coast, of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast

–

CASE SUMMARY

The suit was brought by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration of his title to certain land lying near Abrobonku and known as Otenkyiren land. The cause of the litigation was that in or about 1926 the defendant, Kofi Kuma proposed to sell the land in suit to a certain Mr. Sekyi. The plaintiff gave notice of his objection to the proposed sale, which consequently was not completed. The present defendant then brought a suit against the present plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony, which ordered a survey of the land by an independent surveyor. Accordingly a Mr. Hagan made a survey and prepared a plan which is the plan already referred to and marked A; it was proved at the trial of the present suit by Mr. Hagan. The Supreme Court considering that the matter was more fit for a native tribunal than for that Court, discontinued the suit and referred the parties to a native tribunal. No further step was taken by the defendant to prosecute his suit.

The plaintiff on the 4th February, 1931, instituted the present suit in the native tribunal of the Paramount Chief of Oguaa. The plaintiff claimed a large tract of land which is surrounded by a boundary coloured green on the plan which was exhibited at the trial and marked A. It was transferred by order of the Provincial Commissioner’s Court to the Divisional Court sitting at Cape Coast and was heard without pleadings. Both parties relied upon traditional history and upon present occupation and cultivation of parts of the land in suit. The judgment of the trial Judge however related to a portion only of such land.

–

DECISION(S) OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

1.     Evidence of a plaintiff that the lands of his stool are on all sides of the area in dispute is materials and when taken in connection with the other evidence, was sufficient to establish his title.

2.     Evidence as to the length or continuance of the occupation by the defendant and his predecessors of parts of the land in question, for some considerable time without paying tribute to the plaintiff or his predecessors, is not conclusive evidence of the defendant’s title.

3.     Among the natives, occupation of land is frequently allowed for the purpose of cultivation but without the ownership of the land being parted with. The owner of the land being willing to allow such occupation so long as no adverse claim is made by the occupier; the occupier knowing that he can use the land as long as he likes provided he recognises the title of the owner.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2,000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES