Source: http://www.ghanalandlaw.com/html/Yaw.v.Amobie.htDir/Yaw.v.Amobie.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 23:55:23+00:00

Document:
(1) Brown v. Vawser, 102 E.R. 954; (1804) 4 East 584.
(2) Henfree v. Bromley (1805) 6 East 309; 102 E.R. 1305.
(3) Thompson v. Miller (1867) 15 W.R. 353.
(5) Kwasi v. Larbi  A.C. 164; (1953) 13 W.A.C.A. 76.
APPEAL from a decision of Smith Ag.J. on May 25, 1956, in the Land Court, Ashanti Judicial Division, reversing a decision of the Asantehene's Court `` A.2 '' given on November 30, 1955, which reversed a decision of the Odumasi-Konongo Native Court given on August 30, 1955, in favour of the defendants in an action to enforce an award given on a customary arbitration.
OLLENNU J. This is an appeal from a judgment of Smith A.J., as he then was, delivered in the Land Court, Kumasi, on May 25, 1956. The suit commenced in the Odumasi-Konongo Native Court by writ issued at the instance of the appellant. The claim, which is couched in the popular Native Court from, is in substance a claim for the enforcement of an award of an arbitration made by one Okyeame Kwame Adade, settling a boundary between adjoining lands of the plaintiff and the defendant. The Odumasi-Konongo Native Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim holding that no award was published by the arbitrator. That decision was reversed by the Asantehene's Court `` A.2 '' but was restored by the Land Court.
Whether there has been a valid award or not, upon those facts, is a question of law for the court to determine; the opinion of the arbitrator notwithstanding. Unfortunately both the trial Native Court and the Land Court allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by the opinion which the arbitrator expressed of the law and failed to direct themselves upon the law and to come to their own conclusions. The Asantehene's Court ``A.2 '' on the other hand properly directed themselves on the law and came to the conclusion that the arbitration was concluded because the arbitrators sufficiently published their decision, which turned out to be against the first defendant; and it was because of that indication that the defendants deliberately refused to go before the arbitration for the decision to be formally announced.
It was argued on behalf of the defendants that there was no valid arbitration the award of which could bind them, because no evidence was led that the respondents and the plaintiff agreed beforehand to submit their dispute to the arbitrators. I am not impressed with the argument. It is very rare for two people who are quarreling to meet and agree together that they would submit their dispute to arbitration. The usual thing is that one party makes a complaint to somebody, the other party is sent for, and if he agrees, the party to whom the complaint is made arbitrates upon the dispute. Whether a party agreed to submission to the arbitration or not is a question of fact in each case to be determined from the conduct of that party and other circumstance. In this case the first defendant attended the arbitration, gave evidence before it, agreed that the boundary which would be decided to be demarcated on the land, and paid the fees of 25s. to indicate that agreement. In my opinion all those facts prove voluntary submission to the arbitration by the respondent.
In my opinion this is misdirection. The decision which the arbitrators were called upon to make was the direction of the boundary which exists between the adjoining lands of the two parties. The most effective way of deciding a boundary is by demarcating it on the ground. That is what the arbitrators did in this case. In my opinion the arbitrators made that decision firmly and unequivocally the moment they determined what that boundary was to be and physically demarcated it in the presence and in the view of the parties. Formal oral pronouncement of that decision would add nothing material to that decision which the arbitrators thus made and which they made physically obvious to the contesting parties.
The question is: Is the decision which the arbitrators made any less a determination of the dispute, without it being formally published? Publication of an award is the communication of the decision of the arbitrators to the parties so as to make the arbitrator functus officio. It includes any steps taken to make the award known or available to the parties; it might take the form of an oral pronouncement at a meeting, it might be by a written decision transmitted by the arbitrators to the parties, and it might, as in this case, be made by some physical indications of the decision to the parties.
In my opinion that principle laid down in Thompson v. Miller (3) is properly applicable to an award of arbitration made in accordance with native custom.
The demarcation of the boundary and fixing of poles on that boundary are acts done, and external facts whereby the arbitrator indicated that he had made up his mind, and also declared his final award, so as to make him become functus officio. If was when that final award was so published and thus became known to the respondents that the respondents refused to accept, and wanted their 25s. back; but having once submitted to the arbitration they are not entitled to resile: Kwasi v. Larbi (5).
For the reasons stated, I am of the opinion that both the trial Native Court and the Land Court misdirected themselves on the native law and custom in holding that award of the arbitrators was not published. I would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Land Court including the Order as to costs, restore the judgment of the Asantehene's Court ``A.2 `` and enter judgment for the plaintiff for a declaration that the boundary demarcated by Okyeame Kwame Adade is and shall remain the boundary between his land and the land of the defendant.
GRANVILLE SHARP J.A. I also concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.