Immovable Property Law Cases on Parties Qualified To Hold An Allodial Title

Fiaklu v. Adjiani

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1972

Principle(s): Lands in Kokomlemle are owned by the Ga, Gbese, and Korle stools. All three stools must consent and concur before any valid alienation of land can be made.

Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1987-88

Principle(s): In determining who owns land (allodial title), the courts look at evidence such as past grants of the land, claims of title and resistance to such claims, among others. Allodial title can be lost by acquiescence; Family can be hold allodial title; Innocent purchaser for value without notice; Meaning of adverse possession.

Wiapa v. Solomon

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1905

Principle(s): 1. No land is ownerless. 2. Land may be owned by a paramount stool, a subordinate stool, the family, or an individual. 3. Subjects of a stool have the right to use stool lands.

Baidoo v. Osei and Owusu

Court: High Court

Year: 1957

Principle(s): 1. Stool has the allodial title to stool land; 2. A subject can obtain a usufruct in stool land by cultivating virgin stool land. 3. A subject can alienate his usufruct to another subject without the consent of the stool. 4. It is better for the stool to give a lease of a stool's land to a stranger than for the stranger to acquire a usufruct from a subject. 5. If the stool alienates land over which a subject has a usufruct but does not obtain the consent and concurrence of the usufruct, the alienation is of no effect.

Nii Ago Sai v. Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2010

Principle(s): A family can be a holder of an allodial title; Acts of ownership are evidence of being the allodial title holder; Conquest, settlement, and adverse possession are means of acquiring allodial title; Allodial title may be lost be acquiescence

James Town (Alata) Stool v. Sempe Stool

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1989-1990

Principle(s): A sub-stool can hold an allodial interest.

Nii Ago Sai v Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III

Court: Supreme Court

Year:

Principle(s):

Ameoda v Pordier & Ameoda v. Forzi & Others (Consolidated)

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1967

Principle(s): 1. The allodial interest in a land can be owned by the stool, tribe, family, or individual. 2. In the present case, the families own allodial interests in lands in Ningo. 3. When a licensee denies the title of his licensor, the licensor is entitled to eject him.