DODOO V. GYANSA AND ANOTHER

ADUMUA- BOSSMAN J.: It seems to me that proof of the ownership of the land need not be restricted to the evidence of the vendor or to that of eye-witnesses at the sale. It is the exception rather than the rule that, at the time of litigation about land which has been transferred by methods of customary transfer, the original owner and vendor (and the witnesses to the transaction) are alive to tell the tale. In my experience, it is evidence (if such be available) of the exercise of acts of ownership over the property during the material years, which has served as a beacon-light to guide the courts in determining ownership.

So in United Products Ltd. v. Afari and Others (Div. Ct. 1929-31, p. 12) Deane, C.J. said:

“The probabilities of the case and the evidence of possession strongly support the claimant’s story and I do not consider that the fact that she has not called an eye-witness who was present when the gift was made is ipso facto sufficient to defeat her case and that in fine a gif…