EFFUAH AMISSAH Vs. EFFUAH KRABAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the Appellant in this case for herself and as representing the members of the family of Awooah Alookoo was in effect for a declaration that the members of the family of Awooah Alookoo are the owners of a number of specified lands and villages and of the lands and town of Dutch Seccondee, a town in the Western Province of the Gold Coast Colony, and for an account of all moneys and profits received by the defendants on account of, or out of, the said lands, villages and town from 1 January 1918, and also for an order upon the defendants to deliver up a stool described in the statement of claim as "the native state stool" and certain paraphernalia in the possession or custody of the defendants. The defendants (thirty-two in number) included the defendant Segu Winwah 2, the Ohene or chief of Dutch Seccondee, who was admittedly in actual possession of the state or town stool of Dutch Seccondee, together with the paraphernalia thereof and in possession in a certain limited sense of the lands of Dutch Seccondee district, claimed by the defendants to be attached to the state stool. The other defendants-were Odikroes or headmen under the stool of Dutch Seccondee or elders and councillors of that stool. Such of defendants as are Odikroes were respectively in immediate possession of the named villages claimed by the plaintiffs all of which villages are in Dutch Seccondee district. The plaintiffs named in the writ claimed to be acting for themselves and also on behalf of the members of the family of Awooah Alookoo, who is said to have founded Dutch Seccondee more than 200 years ago. There were three other persons who joined in the action with Effuah Amissah, but these persons are now dead and Effuah Amissah was the only surviving appellant before their Lordships. Dutch Seccondee (or Sekondi) is now a town of some importance situate in Ashanta, a sea coast state of the Gold Coast.

(2.) The natives are Fantis, and speak a dialect of the Fanti language. The land law in the Colony is based upon native customs, and as pointed out in a judgment of this Board delivered by Sir Arthur Channell, in Kobin Angu V/s. Cudjoe Attah (unreported P.G. Appeal No. 78 of 1915.) the material customs must be proved in the first instance by calling witnesses acquainted with them until the particular customs have, by frequent proof in the Courts, become so notorious that the Courts take judicial notice of them. Their Lordships have not been informed of any customary law so established ; and they may observe that it would be very convenient if the Courts in West Africa in suitable cases would rule as to the native customs of which they think it proper to take judicial notice specifying, of course, the tribes (or districts) concerned and taking steps to see that these rulings are reported in a readily accessible form. In the present case, however it is common ground that it is part of the Fanti customary law that lands may be attached to the stool of an Ohene, or to the stool of a family; and no doubt (as appears from other cases) there may be privately owned lands. Further a Fanti family consists, subject to immaterial exceptions, of persons lineally descended through females from a common ancestress. A stool is not only a chattel, but it also connotes an institution with a religious significance. Certain paraphernalia or regalia, e.g., messenger sticks, state umbrellas and state drums go with the state stool and play an important part in a number of native ceremonies. The occupant of a stool is not regarded as the owner of the lands attached to it, but as being in some sense a trustee for the clan, tribe or family subject to the stool. He may be destooled, and if he is detected, the lands and regalia will remain with the stool. The Ohene as occupant of a state stool and an Odikro as occupant of a subordinate stool have certain judicial and administrative powers. Some moneys or profits accrue to the occupant of a stool, but in the present case their nature was left undefined. They seem to arise mainly in connection with sales or leases of stool lands, which take place in the case of a state or town stool with the consent of the Oheno, the elders and the councillors.

(3.) The evidence as to the consents necessary in the case of a family stool was left in some uncertainty. If the state stool incurs a debt all the subsidiary stools are bound to contribute their share in payment. If it is the debt of a family stool, only the family is liable. The distinction, if any, between a state stool and a town stool was not dealt with in the evidence. At the trial native witnesses for the defendants described the stool in question as "the big stool," or the "town stool." Nothing turns in this case on the name. So much was proved or admitted or was common ground in the present case. One other admitted fact is of importance, namely, that the Ohene of Dutch Seccondee district must be a member of the Abrahiam Abradzie family.