VAN LARE J.S.C.: On the evidence as a whole the appellant does not appear to have any answer to the strong case made by the respondent nor has she put forward for consideration any case in opposition to that made by the respondent. On the other hand from the evidence of the appellant and her witnesses one is bound to be led to the conclusion that the disputed farms are not stool properties nor could they possibly be attached to the office as alleged. There is no wonder therefore in my view for the trial judge’s conclusion that the disputed farms belong to the respondent’s family—Kua family. This decision is in accordance with the principle of our customary law that among the Akans the immediate beneficial interest in a woman’s self-acquired property descends to her children and their children—children’s children meaning the children of daughters only—see the judgment of Ollennu, J. in Mills v. Addy (3 W.A.L.R. 357).
Nevertheless the appeal has been argued on certain grounds one of whic…