Principle
ALLODIAL TITLE
Allodial is held in trust by the stool for subjects
Allodial can be owned by individual
The airspace is part of land
Stool subjects are possessory owners of that portion of
land which they reduce into their possession
Allodial title may be acquired through conquest
Allodial acquired through discovery by hunters
Allodial acquired through contiguity i.e. where there’s
unoccupied land between 2 paramount stools
Allodial acquisition by gift to the stool
Acquisition by purchase
Loss of allodial by abandonment
Loss of allodial by conquest
Loss of allodial by adverse possession
© TT 2011
Authority
Amodu Tijani v. Secretary of Southern Nigeria [in Africa, there is
no concept of individual ownership of land; land is considered as
belonging to the community, i.e. stool or family, and held in trust by
the chief or family head who may be called an ‘owner but does not
mean an owner properly so called]
Nyaasemhwe v Afibiyesan [D purported to inherit ancestor’s
tenancy granted by P. In his action for declaration of title, P was able
to show that his ancestor had allodial title to the land. Couldn’t prove
that tenancy was a sowing tenancy so D can inherit usufructuary
rights of their ancestor. Action for damages for trespass misconceived
and dismissed]
Lord Bernstein of Liegh v. Sky Views & General Ltd
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
Golightly v Ashrifi [declaration of title to Kokomlemle lands. P had
long user and occupation. D claimed ownership and granted part to a
stranger. Land owned by Gbese, Korle and Ga Stools but Korle priest
is caretaker; consent and concurrence of all 3 needed with respect to
alienation. But alienation subject to consent of subject or stranger in
possession. Judgment for P]
Owusu v Manche of Labadi [rival claims to compensation for gov’t
acquisition of Nkwantanang lands. P thru long user and
uninterrupted possession; D thru conquest of Nunguas]
Ohimen v Adjei
Ngmati v Adetsia [Manya and Yilo Krobo subjects settled on Krobo
Hill discovered by subject hunters. P is Yilo. Purported grant of part
of his farm land to a Ningo by Manya chief. No Manya subject had
reduced said land into their possession]
Ohimen v Adjei
Wiapa v Solomon [Any unoccupied land under the authority of a
paramount stool which is not part of the land of a subordinate stool or
family or a private person would be attached to the paramount stool]
Ababio v Kanga [claims for Agona land. D was able to show that
they have been and are still in possession. A way of proving
ownership of stool land is to prove that it belongs to a subject. P
estopped by previous decision in respect of same land]
Ofori-Atta v Atefua
Peki – Tsito
Ohimen v Adjei
Ohimen v Adjei
Kwao II v Ansah [D claimed land validly granted to P’s predecessor
was granted to another person when the predecessor abandoned it to
go farm cocoa elsewhere. Francois JA found for P on grounds that
there was no evidence the whole family moved with him and so hadn’t
been able to prove abandonment]
Mansah v Asamoah [where a stranger-grantee dies intestate or
abandons the land, it reverts to the stool which can validly grant the
land]
Owusu v Manche of labadi
Section 10(1) of Limitation decree 1971 (NRCD 54)
No action shall be brought to recover any land after the expiration of
12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to the
person bringing it or, if it first accrued to some person through whom
he claims, to that person.
Page 1 of 7
Principle
Loss of allodial by sale
Loss of allodial by compulsory acquisition
STATUTORY INTERVENTIONS
All public lands in Ghana shall be vested in the President
on behalf of, and in trust for, the people of Ghana.
Minerals in their natural state vested in president
Vesting of stool land in the President does not extinguish
the allodial title of stools
No interest in any stool land shall vest in any person a
freehold interest
Freeholds cannot be granted to foreigners
Any agreement which grants a freehold to a foreigner is
void
Leaseholds to foreigners can only be for a period of 50
years at any particular time
Revenue from sale of stool land divided up by state
© TT 2011
Authority
Section 10(2) - No right of action to recover land shall be deemed to
accrue unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose
favour the period of limitation can run (in this section referred to as
"adverse possession")
Ghassoub & Ghassoub v Sasraku [Plaintiff-respondent proved that
they had been given an outright alienation, were not paying toll to the
paramount stool of Kokofu and had clearly demarcated their
boundaries to exclude trespassers]
Article 20, Constitution 1992 provides for the compulsory
acquisition of land by the State to be used in the public interest
Article 257(1)
Article 257(6) - Every mineral in its natural state in, under or upon
any land in Ghana, rivers, streams, water courses throughout Ghana,
the exclusive economic zone and any area covered by the territorial
sea or continental shelf is the property of the Republic of Ghana and
shall be vested in the President on behalf of, and in trust for the
people of Ghana
Nana Hyeaman v Osei [P challenged validity of a purported timber
concession affecting his land. D claimed only the President can
institute an action in respect of vested lands. The statutory powers of
the President must be construed as running side by side with the
powers of the stools as the allodial owners of stool lands. e.g. The
stool can make grants of stool land vested in the President. The only
fetter on this right is that the concurrence of the minister is required
to validate the grant]
Section 7(1) & (2) Administration of Lands Act, 1962 (Act 123)
- Where it appears to the President that it is in the public interest
so to do he may, by executive instrument, declare any Stool land
to be vested in him in trust and accordingly it shall be lawful for
the President, on the publication of the instrument, to execute any
deed or do any act as a trustee in respect of the land specified in
the instrument.
- Any moneys accruing as a result of any deed executed or act
done by the President under subsection (1) shall be paid into the
appropriate account for the purposes of this Act.
Gyamfi v Owusu [The Constitution of 1969 vested all stool lands in
the appropriate stools in trust for their subjects hence stools still had
rights despite statutory interventions; Act 123 did not divest stools of
their ownership]
Article 267(5) - Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, no
interest in, or right over, any stool land in Ghana shall be created
which vests in any person or body of persons a freehold interest
howsoever described.
Article 266(1) - No interest in, or right over, any land in Ghana shall
be created which vests in a person who is not a citizen of Ghana a
freehold interest in any land in Ghana.
Article 266(2) - An agreement, deed or conveyance of whatever
nature, which seeks, contrary to clause (1) of this article, to confer on
a person who is not a citizen of Ghana any freehold interest in, or
rights over, any land is void
Article 266(4) - No interest in, or right over, any land in Ghana shall
be created which vests in a person who is not a citizen of Ghana a
leasehold for a term of more than fifty years at any one time.
Article 267(6)
Page 2 of 7
Principle
CUSTOMARY LAW FREEHOLD
Usufruct is simultaneous and coexistent with the absolute
ownership
Acquisition of usufruct by discovery of vacant land by
pioneers of stool
Acquisition of usufruct by implied grant from stool where
subject reduces unoccupied stool land into his possession
and occupation for farming purposes
Acquisition of usufruct by express grant of stool where
land is in ready for development and adjoining the town or
where other lands in the vicinity have been occupied hence
a boundary has to be determined
Acquisition by transfer from subject to subject or subject
to stranger
Oral grants are valid. Executed deeds cannot take away
from the grant made under customary law
Usufruct has exclusive possession and use of land reduced
into his possession
Usufruct can bring an action in trespass against the stool if
a grant of his land is made without his consent
Usufruct lost through abandonment
Usufruct lost if he denies title of grantor
Usufruct lost by failure of successors
Usufruct lost by consent of usufructuary
To prove possession, exercise physical control and
© TT 2011
Authority
10% of the revenue accruing from stool lands shall be paid to the
office of the Administrator of Stool Lands to cover administrative
expenses; and the remaining revenue shall be disbursed in the
following proportions-
(a) 25% to the stool through the traditional authority for the
maintenance of the stool in keeping with its status;
(b) 20% to the traditional authority; and
(c) 55% to the District Assembly, within the area of authority of
which the stool lands are situated.
Awuah v Adu Tutu [P, a stranger, bought land from D and cleared
it to farm. He later granted part of it to a tenant for abunu. D
purported to alienate that same portion given to the abunu tenant to
another person]
Kotei v Asere Stool [declaration of title to Mukose lands. Asere Stool
had paramount title and P had the usufruct. Any grants made to
strangers had to be with the consent and concurrence of the
paramount stool]
Ngmati v Adetsia
Oblee v Armah [subjects of same stool claimed ownership of outskirt
land which was part of the compulsorily acquired Accra Town Lands.
P showed that he was in occupation before land was compulsorily
acquired]
Bruce v Quarnor [James Town Stool purported to grant parts of
land alienated to P to the defendants. Held any subject can reduce
vacant land into his possession and it will be treated as an implied
grant by the stool]
Budu II v ceasar
Ohimen v adjei
Amatei v Hammond [Where a subject of a stool requires land for
farming, whether arable or for animal husbandry, and engages
himself in a commercial mechanised farming he should be required to
obtain an actual grant in the form of a lease]
Oblee v Armah [grants made of outskirt lands which were already
developed must be express]
Frimpong v poku
Kotei v Asere stool
Bruce v Quarnor [P’s grant was made orally but a deed was
executed by his grantor later. His ownership was deemed to have
commenced at the time of the oral grant]
Oblee v Armah
Mansu v abboye [D claimed P lost title to his land when land was
compulsorily acquired by the State. No evidence of compulsory
acquisition was however led]
Awuah v Adu-Tutu
Kwao II v Ansah
Mansah v asamoah [where a stranger-grantee dies intestate or
abandons the land, it reverts to the stool which can validly grant the
land]
Total Oil Pdts v Obeng
Mansu v abboye
Mansah v Asamoah
Mansu v abboye
Wuta Ofei v Danquah
Page 3 of 7
Principle Authority

intention to exclude others

Mere absence from land is not evidence of abandonment. Mansah v asamoah [P continued to pay annual tribute to the local
There must be an intention to abandon in addition to the council and co-P introduced himself to the chief as customary
physical act of abandonment [Anin J] successor to his uncle and presented rum and money to the chief and
elders]
When a person in possession of Stool land abandons it or Sarbah, Fanti Customary Laws
when his family have abandoned it for more than ten
years. at least, the village headman and others can allow
another person to occupy the same.
When a subject-grantee dies, his successor need not
introduce himself to the stool because he occupies the land
as a matter of rights. However when a stranger grantee
dies, his successor must introduce himself to the stool so
chiefs know who occupies the land and will be fulfilling
any obligations imposed by the grant
Presence of economic trees on land is prima facie evidence Norquaye-Tetteh v Malm [although Mango trees can grow wildly, it
of occupation needs the industry of man to flourish. The presence of mango trees
therefore shows that the land in dispute is a farmstead]
Owusu v Manche of Labadi
Wuta offei v Danquah
Subject can alienate as long as he recognises the allodial Norquaye-tetteh v malm
title holder Total Oil Pdts v Obeng [P ejected from land bought from a stranger-
grantor by the allodial holder]
Thompson v mensah
Awuah v adu-tutu
When usufruct alienates without the consent of stool, it is Buour v Bekoe
voidable
Stool cant make a grant in land in which subject holds Total oil pdts v obeng
usufruct without his consent Mansu v Abboye
Awuah v Adu-Tutu
Baidoo v osei & owusu
Amatei v hammond
Stool can’t alienate land occupied by a stranger without Mansah v Asamoah [Aduamoa stool purported to make a grant of P,
his consent as long as the stranger is complying with the a stranger-grantee’s land, on grounds of alleged atuogya but P was
conditions of the grant paying annual tribute to the local council]
A stranger-grantee cannot alienate land without the Mansah v Asamoah [Per Archer JA (as he was then)]
consent of the stool
Stranger-grantee’s determinable estate is heritable, and it Mansah v Asamoah [P inherited land from her uncle who was a
vests immediately in his successor as of right, upon his stranger-grantee]
appointment as customary successor

MANAGEMENT OF STOOL LANDS

The occupant of the stool or skin may sue and be sued on Order 4, Rule 9 of HC (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47)
behalf of the stool - The occupant of a stool or skin or, where the stool or skin is vacant,
the regent or caretaker of that stool or skin may sue and be sued on
behalf of or as representing the stool or skin.

- The head of a family in accordance with customary law may sue and
be sued on behalf of or as representing the family.

- If for any good reason the head of a family is unable to act or if the
head of a family refuses or fails to take action to protect the interest
of the family any member of the family may subject to this rule sue on
behalf of the family.

Gyamfi v Owusu
Private citizens have no locus to commence or defend Gyamfi v Owusu [only the chief or a caretaker of the stool in the
proceedings in respect of stool lands event that no chief has been selected had bring an action or defend an
action in respect of stool land]

© TT 2011
Page 4 of 7
Principle Authority

Owusu v Agyei [the SC stretched the exceptions in Kwan v Nyieni to

In the absence of the chief, another may be appointed
under customary law to represent him
cover subjects of stools]
Ofuman stool v Nchiraa Stool [persons who may be appointed by a
stool for the purposes of litigation includes the linguist, elders and
office holders of the stool (who are its natural representatives) but the
class will not be extended beyond these save in the case of a
particular stool where a local custom, proved to the satisfaction of the
court, establishes that some other person or persons are entitled to
represent the stool concerned]

Bukuruwa stool v Kumawu stool [only the occupant of a stool can

Valid alienation of stool land is one made by the occupant
with the consent and concurrence of the principal
councillors
Where occupant does not participate in alienation it’s void
Alienation by occupant and at least the linguist is binding
on the stool
sue and be sued in respect of stool property. When a stool is vacant
the regent or caretaker or other person appointed by the council of
stool elders may sue and be sued]
Allotey v Abrahams [the chief or head of family is an indispensable
figure in dealing with stool or family land; without him any alienation
is void ab initio]
Agbloe v Sappor
Amankwanor v Asare
Allotey v Abrahams

FAMILY LAND
Definition of family Okoe v Ankrah [family is the descendants in the direct line of a
common ancestor]
Augustt v Aryee [head of family made a grant of deceased’s self-
acquired property which was in ruins to the defendant]
Where family holds allodial, members’ rights similar to Oblee v Armah
interests of stool subjects Heyman v Attipoe
Family member may exercise rights of possession against Heyman v Attipoe
family head Yeboah v Kwakye
Family member may exercise rights of possession against Nunekpeku v Ametepe
other members of family
Family member may exercise rights of possession against Botwe v oduro
strangers
Rights of family members include
- right to residence in family houses
- payment of funeral and other expenses upon
member’s death
- support for school, to start a business
Obligations of family members
- contribute towards payment of family debts
- contribute towards payment of debts of individual
members
- payment of funeral expenses of deceased mebers
- assistance to needy members
Property acquired with family resources becomes part of Bisi v tabiri aka asare
family property Tsetsewa v Acquah
Where a member acquires property with a small Cudjoe v kwatchey
contribution from the family, property isn’t family
property
Where a family member benefits from financial support of Larbi v Cato
the family towards education, property subsequently
acquired by them isn’t family property
Where a member acquires land with own resources and Boafo v staudt
other members provide funds to build, house is family
property
Where a member builds on family land, the house Amissah-abadoo v abadoo
becomes family property with the member retaining life
interest. Upon his death, widow and issue have only right

© TT 2011
Page 5 of 7
Principle Authority

of occupation, subject to good behaviour

Where member makes an extension to family farm or Nkonnua v anaafi
improves it, it remains family property
Where member makes an extension to family building or Kumah v asante
improves it, it remains family property
Where family property is lost through sale or attachment Nwonama v Asiedu
and a member repurchases or redeems it, it becomes
family property unless members of the family were
specifically informed at the time of the redemption that the
property will not resume its former position as family
property
Where social obligation requires members of family to Yoguo v Agyekum
assist another and property is acquired, it’s the individual’s
property and not the family’s
A family meeting must be convened to secure the Awortchie v eshon
necessary consents required for a valid alienation of family
land
Only the family head is entitled, with the consent and Allotey v Abrahams per Ollennu J
concurrence of principal elders to alienate family land
There can be no valid alienation without the participation Allotey v Abrahams
of the head of family but there can be a valid alienation if
family head makes grant with consent and concurrence of
some but not all principal elders. Family head is
indispensable figure
Alienation without family head is void ab initio Agbloe v sappor
Alienation by family head alone is voidable but the elders Adjei v Appiagyei
can bring a timeous action to set it aside and restore Beyaidee v mensah
grantee to his position before the sale Manko v bonso
Yawoga v yawoga

LITIGATION IRO FAMILY LAND

In order to set aside a voidable transaction Adjei v Appiagyei
- the person bringing the action must be the proper rep Ata v Aidoo
of the family
- family should have been ignorant of the transfer
- family should not acquiesced by their conduct
- action should be timeous
- grantee should be restored to his position before the
grant
Head of family may sue and be sued on behalf of the Kwan v Nyieni
family Order 4, Rule 9 of the High Court (Civil) Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI
47)
Where capacity of the person suing is challenged, the Ata v Aidoo
burden of proof lies on the person to show he has locus to Nyamekye v ansah
represent the family Akrofi v otenge
A representative may bring an action in connection with Kwan v Nyieni
family land if the head of family makes no move to save Lamptey v Neequaye
family property in danger out of personal interest, where
there’s a division in the family, where head of family and
elders are deliberately deposing family property in their
personal interest to the detriment of the family
Where head of family sues in representative capacity, he’s Daatsin v Amissah
held personally liable for payment of costs awarded
against him

APPOINTMENT OF HEAD OF FAMILY

Head of family is appointed by principal members of Walbeck v captan
family Lartey v mensah
Meeting where appointment is to be done must be Lartey v mensah

© TT 2011
Page 6 of 7
Principle Authority

convened specifically for that purpose and due notice

should be given to all members
Where principal members absent themselves after due Lartey v mensah
notification, present members can duly appoint
Where some of the elders are not notified, upon proof of Lartey v mensah
failure of notification, they may move to set aside the
decision taken at the meeting
Where there is a division in the family, one faction cannot Ankrah v allotey
appoint a family head for the whole family
Strangers could be invited to meeting as observers and Banahene v adinkrah
possibly participate in deliberation but not take part in the
decision to appoint family head
Appointment of family head is not automatic and it does Hervi v tamakloe
not devolve as a matter of right or entitlement

REMOVAL OF FAMILY HEAD

Decision to remove family head must be taken in a family Quagraine v adu
meeting with all principal members invited to attend Abaka v Ambradu
Head can be removed by a majority of the principal Abaka v Ambradu
members
Head of family to be removed must be served notice of the Abaka v Ambradu
meeting but the notice must not state purpose of the
meeting. If he fails to attend without good reason, he may
be removed absentia
Courts will not interfere with removal unless it Allotey v Quarcoo
substantially departs from the tenets of natural justice
Person seeking to challenge appointment or removal of Walbeck v Captan
family head has burden of proof for the invalidity

ACCOUNTABILITY OF HEAD OF FAMILY

Members of family cannot call on head of family to Fynn v Gardiner
account. Their only remedy is to depose him and appoint Abude v onano
another Hansen v Ankrah
Head of family is accountable to the family for family PNDCL 114
property, he must prepare an inventory of family property
in his custody, members of family with beneficial interest
in property may bring an action against head

CUSTOMARY TENANCIES
Abunu and abusa Manu v Ainoo
A licencee or tenant’s long use cannot ripen into Mensah v Blow
possessory rights
A landowner cannot unilaterally change or vary the terms Manu v Ainoo
of the customary licence
Right to compensation in the case of compulsory Section 19 Land Title Registration Act [doublecheck]
acquisition
A contractual relationship which gives rise to proprietary
rights
Right is heritable and almost into perpetuity as long as Mensah v Blow??
tenant abides by the terms of the relationship

© TT 2011
Page 7 of 7