On the authorities, it is clear that the Osu Mantse is the proper authority to grant Osu Stool lands; that is to say, land which is not a Quarter Stool land nor a Quarter “outskirt” land. This has been understood and followed by the courts since the judgment of Jackson J., delivered in the Land Court, Accra, in an Acquisition Enquiry under the Public Lands Ordinance on the 24th July, 1951, now popularly known and referred to as the “R.E. Acquisition Case.” An appeal against that decision was dismissed by the West African Court of Appeal (see 14 W.A.C.A. 492). It is also a well established principle of law that the head and elders of a Quarter Stool in Osu constitute the proper authority to grant a Quarter land. On the other hand, where unalienated “outskirt” land is in the charge of the head and elders of a Quarter, the final decision whether or not to make a grant of such land rests in the Osu Mantse. But, although the Osu Mantse may reject the advice of such head and elders of a Quarter, he cannot himself make a valid grant without prior consultation with them (Aryee v. Adefoley, 13 W.A.C.A. 161).
Capacity of an occupant of a stool to sue on behalf of the stool
Order 4 rule 9(1) of C.I.47 which did not exist in the old Civil Procedure Rules 1954 (LN140A) clearly permits the occupant of a stool or skin or the regent or caretaker where the stool is vacant to sue and be sued on behalf of or as representing the stool. This provision thus clothes the occupant of a stool or skin to represent the stool or skin and also be sued on behalf of stool or skin.
From the foregoing explanations it follows that when the duly recognised occupant of the stool for the time being is sued as representing the stool and he is served with the writ of summons and enters formal appearance or causes the same to be done for him so that, or whereby, the stool comes to be properly and legally before the court, if thereafter he (the stool occupant should cease to hold his office, the position which arises is that the recognised representative of the stool ceases to be before the court, but not that the legal entity, which is the stool, also ceases to be before the court.
Ghanaian customary land law has always been that ground rent in respect of Stool lands is payable to the Stool through the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands. If it is the case of the plaintiffs that this renown principle is not applicable in their community, they may take it up with their Stools and not the defendant herein who is just complying with a valid and binding law.
