Search a Keyword!

Search our legal repository for any term from articles, statutes to cases

Kofi Baidoo As Caretaker Of The Jomo Stool Of Jomo Division In Shama State & Anor V. Kweku Akweku Of Abuasi, Jomo Division (1944) LJR-WACA

Kofi Baidoo As Caretaker Of The Jomo Stool Of Jomo Division In Shama State & Anor V. Kweku Akweku Of Abuasi, Jomo Division (1944)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Fishing rights—ejectment–admissibility of documentary evidence.

Facts

In 1917 an agreement was made between certain parties on behalf of the Jomo Stool and the people of the fishing villages of Aboadzie and Aboasi. As time passed, the Aboasi community collected, tolls from stranger fishermen.


In 1939, on account of the death of most of the signatories to the first agreement, a new agreement was made, the signatory on behalf of Aboasi being the second Plaintiff. This agreement followed the terms of the first agreement and, in addition, recognised the right to levy tolls. But the Defendant and not the second Plaintiff collected the tolls, and in consequence the first Plaintiff as caretaker of the Stool and the second Plaintiff as the Aboasi • signatory to the 1939 agreement instituted this action to restrain the Defendant from continuing to collect the fishing tolls, and to eject him.

Held

That the defendant and not the second plaintiff is the headman of the Aboasi fishing community, therefore the 1939 agreement is invalid, and the 1917 agreement remains binding as between the Stool (represented by the first plaintiff) and the defendant as successor to the original Aboasi signatory.


Held further, that the 1917 agreement, though not specifically therein stated, was plainly intended to bind the respective parties not as individuals but as between overlord and community ; and that from this agreement the right to levy tolls may tacitly be assumed as resembling a sub-letting of part of a fishing right.

See also  Rex V. Ngwu Obuka (1936) LJR-WACA


Held further, that the case is not a land case, but a monetary claim.


The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs assessed at £37 15s. against the Plaintiffs jointly and severally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *