Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Woodman, Gordon R.
1985.
People's Law and state law.
p.
143.
Article contents
Native Custom, its Similarity to English Conventional Custom and its Mode of Proof
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The rules respecting custom in Ghana (the Gold Coast) are found in the law reports, the statements of chiefs and elders, the works of textbook writers, both lawyers and anthropologists, and in the unreported decisions of the courts. It is important, however, to distinguish between the rules which have the force of law and those which have not. Here it is proposed to outline the mode of proof required before custom can be recognised as law, bearing in mind that an English judicial system has been imposed upon Ghana, working through a system of case law with its attendant precedents. It is further hoped to point the way to a possible method of ensuring the preservation of the indigenous customs, which is believed to be desirable in order to ensure their natural development.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1958
References
2 Jurisprudence (9th Edition).
3 Salmond, op. cit., p. 60.
4 The Changing Law, Stevens & Sons, 1953, p. vii.
page 102 note 1 Notes on Customary Law as Administered in the Punjab, 1878, p. 9.
page 102 note 2 Sarbah, F. C. L., 2nd Ed., p. 137.
page 102 note 3 Gold Coast (Privy Council) Reports, 1874–1928, p. 44.
page 102 note 4 See Tsetsewa & Ors. v. Acquah & anor., 7 W.A.C.A., p. 216 at p. 221.
page 102 note 5 Ren. 550, at p. 551.
page 103 note 1 See “The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa”, (1957) 20 M.L.R. 244, at p. 260.
page 103 note 2 Salmond, op. cit. p. 255.
page 103 note 3 Op. cit. p. 258.
page 103 note 4 Op. cit. p. 255.
page 103 note 5 See Bongay v. Macauley, I W.A.G.A. 225.
page 104 note 1 Salmond, op. cit., p. 273. and Hughes, Jurisprudence, 1955, p. 201.
page 104 note 2 Kunkuma v. Yeboa, S./C., Kumasi, Suit No. 2/1948. See below p. 108.
page 104 note 3 Op. cit. pp. 261–265.
page 104 note 4 3 Madras H.C.R., p. 75.
page 104 note 5 10 Bom. L.R., 241.
page 105 note 1 Fanti Customary Laws, 2nd Ed., p. 26.
page 105 note 2 See also Boulnois & Rattigan, op. cit., p. 29.
page 105 note 3 [1954] 3 W.L.R., p. 562.
page 106 note 1 See Colonial Office, Africa (West), No. 1047, Minutes of Evidence 14259 and 14292.
page 106 note 2 1921–25, Div. Court, p. 170.
page 106 note 3 Land Court, Accra, 1951.
page 106 note 4 W.A.C.A., No. 106/53, 4th March, 1953.
page 107 note 1 See above p. 104.
page 107 note 2 7 W.R. p. 210, 1867.
page 107 note 3 Op. cit. p. 54.
page 108 note 1 Perry’s Oriental Cases, p. 110.
page 108 note 2 Supreme Court, Kumasi, 12.5.50.
page 108 note 3 Supreme Court, Kumasi, Suit No. 2/1948.
page 108 note 4 See below, p. 109.
page 109 note 1 Full Court, 1926–1929, p. 470.
page 109 note 2 See Vanderpuye v. Botchway, 9 W.A.C.A. 127, and my article, J.A.A., Vol. VII, No. 3, July, 1956.
page 109 note 3 I W.A.C.A. 80.
page 109 note 4 See also Quayson v. Abba, Div. Court., 1931–37, p. 50.
page 109 note 5 See above, at p. 102.
page 110 note 1 6 W.A.C.A., p. 108.
page 110 note 2 Written Judgments, 11th May to 12th July, 1948, Appeal No. 27.
page 110 note 3 See above, p. 102.
page 110 note 4 W.A.C.A. Cyclostyled Reports, Jan.-Feb., 1947, p. 42.
page 110 note 5 I W.A.L.R., p. 227.
page 111 note 1 See Kisiedu v. Dompre, 2 W.A.C.A. 281, at p. 286.
page 111 note 2 See above, p. 107.
page 112 note 1 See Noble v. Kennoway (1780), 2 Douglas, p. 510.
page 112 note 2 Angu v. Attah.
page 112 note 3 (1898) 1 Q.B.D., 125, at p. 129.
page 112 note 4 See also Hughes op cit., p. 199.
page 112 note 5 [1931], A.C., 662, at p. 673.
page 112 note 6 It is interesting to note that the common consent of the community is also considered to be a necessary ingredient of Indian custom according to Boulnois & Rattigan, op. cit., p. 32.
page 112 note 7 Salmond, op. cit., p. 255.
page 112 note 8 (1905), Renner’s Reports, p. 366, at p. 367.
page 112 note 9 See also Quarm v. Yankah II above.
page 112 note 10 Op cit., p. 119.
page 112 note 11 See above, p. 103.
page 113 note 1 See above, p. 112.
page 114 note 1 See also Manbre Saccharine Co. v. Corn Products Co., [1919], 1 K.B., p. 198, per MACARDIE, J., at p. 206.
page 114 note 2 (1875), L.R., 10 Exch., p. 337, at p. 357.
page 114 note 3 Full Court, 1926–29, p. 83.
page 114 note 4 See Kunkuma v. Yeboa, above, p. 108.
page 114 note 5 See above, p. 107.
page 114 note 6 See the position regarding Native Court decisions, at p. 110.
- 1
- Cited by