Adjei v. Acquah and Others [1991] 1 GLR 13-31

Material Facts:

The plaintiff instituted an action in the High Court for a declaration of title to land called Apakye. He claimed the land was given to his ancestors when they emigrated from Akyim Achiase and settled at Egyaa No. 1. To further prove his title, he called persons that owned land adjoining the disputed Apakye land to give evidence in support of his claim.

The defendants denied this claim and claimed their ancestors also emigrated from Techiman and founded Egyaa No. 1. That it was their ancestors who offered the plaintiff’s ancestors a place when they later arrived.

Procedural History:

At the trial High Court, judgement was given in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on grounds that the plaintiff was unable to prove his traditional history and story. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not a party must prove his traditional story to succeed in an action for declaration of title.

Holding:

A party does not have to prove his traditional story to succeed.

Ratio Decidendi:

In the case of Adjeibi-Kojo v. Bonsie (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 257 , the Privy Council had correctly held that:

The dispute was all as to the traditional history which had been handed down by word of mouth from their forefathers. In this regard it must be recognised that, in the course of transmission from generation to generation, mistakes may occur without any dishonest motives whatever . . . In such a case demeanour is little guide to the truth. The best way is to test the traditional history by reference to the facts in recent years as established by evidence and by seeing which of two competing histories is the most probable.

In the opinion of their lordships, this holding should not be understood to mean a party must first prove his traditional story before he can succeed in an action. Per Aikins JSC,

The law is that although traditional evidence has a part to play in actions for declaration of title, a favourable finding on its evidence is not necessarily essential to the case of the party seeking the declaration : see Ebu v. Ababio (supra). . . In this case the action was fought between two stools for a declaration of title to an area of land. The traditional evidence relied upon by both parties was inconclusive, but the plaintiff satisfactorily proved long occupation and the exercise of rights over the land in dispute, and on this evidence a declaration of title was made in his favour. The trial court rejected the point raised that the plaintiff’s stool should not succeed without first finding in its favour on the traditional evidence of first occupation and title. [emphasis is ours]

Similarly, Wiredu JSC advanced that:

I do not think the guidelines laid down in Dua III v. Tandoh (supra) and Adjeibi-Kojo v. Bonsie (1957) 3 W.A.L.R. 257 are to the effect that for a plaintiff to succeed his traditional story must be accepted as proved. This is not a sine qua non to succeeding: [p.30] see Ebu v. Ababio (1956) 2 W.A.L.R. 55.

Summarily, it is not the case that for a party to succeed, he must prove his traditional story or history.

Rather, what the authorities say is that the traditional stories must be weighed against recent facts to see which of the two conflicting stories is more probable. Wiredu JSC delivered himself as follows:

What the authorities require is that such stories must be weighed along with recent facts as acts of exercise of rights of ownership to see which of the two rival stories appears more probable. Facts established by matters and events within living memory, especially evidence of acts of exercise of ownership and possession, must take precedence over mere traditional evidence.

It is now well settled law that where the whole evidence in a case is conflicting and confusing and there is little to choose between the two rival traditional stories, possession and evidence of recent exercise of acts of ownership should be the best guide to determining title: see Kwaku v. Brown (supra).

In the present case, the plaintiff supported his case by calling on persons that owned land adjoining the disputed land. Such persons affirmed the plaintiff’s title. In that case, the trial judge, being unpersuaded by the traditional evidence put up by both the plaintiff and the defendant, was justified in resolving the issue of ownership by relying on “a more positive and reliable evidence which showed events and dealings relating to the disputed land by the parties within living memory and the state of affairs as at the time of the commencement of the action.”

Principle in Case:

1. It is not the law that a plaintiff must prove his traditional story to succeed in an action.

2. Rather, the law is that traditional stories must be weighed along with recent facts, such as the exercise of rights of ownership, to see which of the two rival traditional stories is more probable.