NANA AKPANDJA Vs. FIAGA EGBLOMESSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and respondent who are concerned in the dispute which their Lordships have to consider are the chiefs of certain districts in Togoland. The appellant is the paramount chief of Buem Borada which is in the part of Togoland under British mandate whilst the respondent is the chief of Akposso Badu which is in the portion of Togoland under French Mandate. The dispute concerns the ownership of certain lands approximately 15 square miles in extent situated on the British side of the international boundary between the French and British mandated territory. The dispute also extends to land on the French side of the boundary, but that portion is not subject to British jurisdiction and is not the subject-matter of appeal. The case has already been the subject of three decisions-firstly, before the Assistant District Commissioner, who found that each party was entitled to about half of the land in dispute; secondly, before the Acting Commissioner of the Eastern Provinces who decided in favour of the appellant, and thirdly, before the West African Court of Appeal, who restored the judgment of the Acting District Commissioner. From that decision the appellant appeals to His Majesty in Council.

(2.) Substantially the appellant's case is that the land in dispute was originally his, that many years ago a tribe called the Kwawus applied to his predecessors for leave to settle on it; that they gave permission, that the Kwawus came and increased so much in power that they wished the appellant's subjects the Akpandja to serve them; that two battles took place-in the first the Kwawus were victorious with the help of the Ashanti, that the Akpossos gave no help but that both the Akpandja and the Akpossos had to pay tribute to the Ashanti as a result of their victory. Later in a second battle the Akpandja were victorious, and having driven out the Kwawus re-took possession of the disputed territory and retained it ever since. The Akpossos had once, he said, been subordinate to the Akpandja but had ceased to be so, and had taken no part in either battle, or given any help, or made any payment except through him to the Ashanti by way of tribute. The respondent also spoke of the fighting with the Kwawus and Ashanti. Both were agreed that it took place before the Germans came, i.e., more than 55 years ago. He also said that the respondent's subjects had been subordinate to the appellant's people but had ceased to be so; that the land was originally theirs that it was they who granted it to the Kwawus, that the battles with them and the Ashanti did indeed take place, but that the Akpossos took part in the struggle and assisted in defeating the enemy. He agreed that, as the Akpandja had joined with his people and helped to reclaim the land, they ought to have received a share of the recovered territory, but said that the appellant's predecessor agreed that it was a long way for him to go and therefore sold the land in exchange for a quantity of men, sheep and cloths. He accordingly claimed the whole.

(3.) The respondent who was plaintiff in the original action was represented by his son and the appellant by his second linguist. In addition to the respective representatives the respondent called five witnesses and the appellant four. After hearing the evidence the Acting District Commissioner proceeded to inspect the land in question, and after doing so gave his judgment, dividing the land between the two chiefs. To this judgment he attached a sketch map, which though it does not purport to be accurately drawn, gives a sufficient picture of the land in dispute. The eastern portion, being in French territory, cannot be exactly defined, but the other boundaries consist of the Kadibenum River on the north, the path from Kadjabi to Ahamansu on the west and the River Menu on the south. The whole of this country was claimed by the respondent, whilst the appellant maintained that it was his and that the boundary between the two chieftains was at Abotoasi in French territory. The Acting District Commissioner gave the portion north of the River Ojinji to the appellant and the southern portion to the respondent.