Nana Kwami NKYI XI V. Sir Tsibu Darku IX & Anor (1953)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Estoppel—Paramount Chief helping to fix boundary between his sub-chief and the sub-chief of another State—Judgment—Non-party in same interest with a Party.

Facts

The first respondents, a Paramount Chief and two of his sub-chiefs, hereafter referred to collectively as the Granting State, granted a concession to the second respondent which the appellant, the Paramount Chief of a neighbouring State, hereafter referred to as the Opposing State, opposed, claiming a portion of the
land.

There had been trouble at the boundary between the border sub-chief of the now Granting State (the predecessor in title of one of the respondents No. 1) and the border sub-chief of the now Opposing State; the Paramount Chiefs of the two States intervened and settled the boundary through arbitrators; and in 1924 the border sub-chief of the now Opposing State sued the border sub-chief of the now Granting State asking the Court to give effect to the boundary award of the arbitrators, and the representative of the then Paramount Chief of the now Opposing State gave evidence in support of that boundary, which was shown on a plan.

That boundary was adopted in the judgment and was latersurveyed and demarcated by Government without opposition.

In this Concession Enquiry the Paramount Chief of the Opposing State sought to avoid that boundary. The land claimed by him fell on the side of the Granting State according to that boundary, and the Court held that the Opposing State was estopped by the judgment in the 1924 suit—Chief Katurka Yardom (representing the border sub-chief of the now Opposing State) v. ChiefKurankyi Minta III (border sub-chief of the now Granting State).

The Paramount Chief of the Opposing State appealed and argued that he did not derive his title from his sub-chief, and was not a party nor privy to the sub-chief, the plaintiff in that suit which (i) decided the boundary between two sub-chiefs on the basis of an agreement between them, and (ii) did not define the boundary as such between the two States and could not define it as it was not an issue in that suit; for which reasons he was not estopped by the judgment in that suit of 1924.

Held

The appellant was estopped because:—
(i) his predecessor in title actively participated in fixing the boundary and did not assert any title to land on the other side during the boundary settlement;

(ii) his State’s interests were coterminous with those of the plaintiff sub-chief in the 1924 suit and the judgment in that suit bound him though not a party: a party his predecessor could have become had he chosen to apply under the rules of Court.

Appeal dismissed.