The High Court, Tamale, presided over by His Lordship Justice Richard Mac Mogyapwah, Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge, has affirmed ownership of an over 9000km parcel of land in the Savannah Region of Ghana as being vested in the Jahori Clan in the Bole Traditional Area.

The case, which lasted for barely two years was instituted by the Bolewura, Sarfo Kutuge Feso I, suing for himself and on behalf of the descendants of Ndewura Jakpa, within the Bole Traditional Area, against Fuseina Nungbaso and two others.

In the judgment dated 23rd July, 2025, reported on the Case Report of The Law Platform Library as [TLP/HC/2025/02], the High Court dismissed the claims of the plaintiff traditional Overload, resolving in essence, all issues for determination, in favour of the defendants.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

The plaintiff’s case was that, lands within Bole and by extension, the Bole Traditional Area belonged to the descendants of Ndewura Jakpa, the founder of the Gonja Kingdom and that he held same in trust on their behalf. Per further pleadings of the Plaintiff traditional ruler, lands in the Gonja kingdom were held by the skin.

The plaintiff, through his lawyer, Mr. Terrence Ninnang submitted that the defendants were not descendants of Ndewura Jakpa and by virtue of same, had no interest in the disputed land. He therefore sought the intervention of the Court to prevent a usurpation of his authority and possession of the subject matter land.

DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS

The defendants, represented by the learned Stephen Obeng Darko, challenged the averments of the Plaintiff-traditional ruler, averring that the land in dispute belonged to the Defendants and referred to same as 'Jahori Lands' under the control of the 'Jahoriwura'. They further posited, that under Gonja custom, lands were owned by a family, skin or clan and held in trust by the family head, chief or clan head respectively as the case may be.

While acknowledging the authority of the Plaintiff over the Bole Traditional Area, the 2nd defendant, particularly averred, that the Plaintiff did not oversee all the lands in the Traditional Area, giving examples of such communities, including Chriwura's land, Tarewura's land, Sonyowura's land, Konwura's land and Sakpawura's land.

HIGH COURT DECISION

Relying on the rules of evidence as enacted in the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), in respect of proof in civil matters such as the instant case and principles relating to traditional evidence, the court, strengthened further by a myriad of decided cases, delivered its judgment infavour of the defendants, establishing in essence, that whereas lands in the northern territories of Ghana may usually be vested in skins, families/clans may also be vested with absolute ownership of lands.

In resolving the issue as to whether or not all lands within the Bole Traditional Area belonged exclusively to the descendants of Ndewura Jakpa, the learned Court of Appeal Judge sitting as addition High Court judge stated that, the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of persuasion, citing the provisions of sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323).

Further, the court noted, that while being guided by the admonition on courts to be slow in being wowed by seemingly coherent narration of accounts of witnesses and to rather look deeper into overt acts of ownership and possession in respect of land disputes, the resolution of which requires weighing conflicting traditional evidence, the court, found that the defendants had adduced sufficient evidence to establish their exercise of overt and incontrovertible acts of ownership and possession of the disputed lands. The effect was that, the Plaintiff's case appeared less believable in the eyes of the court.

The case of defendants was edified when they persuaded the court strongly, that the same parcel of land had been litigated upon in Suit No. NR/TL/HC/E1/25/21 intituled: JAHORI WURA FUSEINI NUNGBASO & 2 ORS. VRS. KOTOBIRE IBRAHIM@ SONYOWURA & ANOR in which case title was declared in their favour on the merits.

In response, the plaintiff indicated that he had no knowledge of the referred judgment. In a rebuttal and in proof of the said judgment, as the burden was allocated to them, the defendants tendered exhibit 7 (the judgment of the High Court, differently constituted) through the 2nd Defendant.

The court noted, that there was no evidence that the said exhibit (judgment) had been set aside or appealed against. Also, a cautious scrutiny confirmed that interest, title and right was confirmed in defendants’ favour by the High Court, differently constituted. No evidence was led to the contrary. The said exhibit 7 had attached to it, executory processes as well. It also included Exhibit 10 which was proof that the said judgment had been registered at the Lands Commission.

His Lordship the learned judge, whereas admitting, that the weight attached to a judgment of a High Court was not unambiguous, concluded that it was settled law, that while the High Court was bound by decisions of the Supreme court and the Court of Appeal, decisions of the High Court were of persuasive effect. The said judgment was found to constitute persuasive evidence, as the plaintiff and his witnesses blatantly denied participation in the proceedings of and knowledge of same.

The court, thus, dismissed the action of the plaintiff, awarding cost of GHC 70,000 in favour of the defendants.

Read/download the judgment of H/L Richard Mac Mogyapwah below: