Gá-Dángme Property

By Dr Nii Armarh Aryeh
The universal division of property into immovable property or realty and movable property or chattels is recognised in the traditional law of the Gá-Dangme. Immovable property is subdivided into land and house; and a broad distinction is recognised between mere chattels and valuable chattels like chattels gold ornaments, kente cloth, tools of trade, and industrial plant.

Further, it should be appreciated that there is a distinction in traditional law between ancestral property and self-acquired property; the distinction applies to both realty and chattels. Thus a gold-ring maybe part of an ancestral heirloom which is retained by the family and used on ceremonial occasions. Property in things acquired by ancestors and bequeathed or devised to the family in common remains vested in the extended family and cannot be validly sold on by individual members of the family to third parties. On the other hand, self-aquisitions may be freely sold by the acquirer.

The concepts of ownership, possession, custody and control as well as waste and improvement to land and other property were well known in traditional notions of property. On the whole, ownership aros out of original acquisition or legitimate transfer by way of gift inter vivos, purchase, etc. Where by expending labour or through the exercise of superior mental powers or business skills an individual reduced a piece of previously unowned land into their possession, generated a product or developed an artistic motif, traditional law rules were developed to allow them to retain ownership of such land, product or motif.
Thus if Tettey, a stool-subject, regularly farmed on a piece of land, building a dwelling house on part of the land, and regularly defended his farm and home against intruders and trespassers, the traditional law recognised that he had acquired title to such land. Such title was both alienable and heritable.

However, to support and confirm Tettey's title against all comers he was required to formally approach the village leaders for a confirmation of his title. As a stool-subject he paid a token amount of money and presented an assortment of drinks to mark and publicise the occasion. The leaders ensured that Tettey's land was carefully demarcated from the holdings of others; therefore, his neighbours might be called to witness the ceremony and to raise any objections they might have. Subsequently Tettey could call upon both his neighbours and the village leaders in disputes over his title to the land. Alternatively, Tettey could initially approach the leaders for an express grant before commencing to work the land.

If on the other hand, Tettey felled timber and made a canoe (ahima orlele) or oar out of the log by his own independent effort or by the assistance of paid individuals, the canoe or oar remained his. He acquired absolute title to it as he was responsible for its creation; he owed it of no one else. An individual could acquire a large number of things either directly in this way or by purchase, using money obtained through the sale of products created by himself. Therefore, the traditional production process was based entirely on the generation of things by individuals who acquired the original title. Things produced in this way could be sold on to several persons, but title could be established only through a chain of legitimate acquisitions from persons who had acquired the item in a direct line from persons the original creator and his buyers had dealt with.

This clear-cut picture is somewhat muddied by the communal character of the majority of traditional production. Many things were produced by family or social groups instead of individuals. In that case, the product of the collective effort was shared out at the end of production process with each individual owning what was legitimately allocated to them.

If the product was not divisible or was purposely created to be retained by the group, then members of the creating family or group acquired a collective title. If the product had an income-yielding capacity, like a canoe or house, then the concepts of improvement and waste with their consequential effects on quality influenced the final value.
Although the product may be retained by someone else yet the original producer or acquirer might still own it if there had been no legitimate process of transfer of ownership. In that case, the acquirer was recognised by the traditional law as having ownership, but not custody and possession. If on the other hand, the product was temporarily in the hands of the acquirer's apprentice then the acquirer was held to have both ownership and custody, but not possession. If, however, the product was transferred by way of sale, or consensually by way of gift the acquirer lost ownership and custody as well as possession.

Intellectual property rights in artistic motifs and the like are best illustrated today in the work of coffin makers in Nungua to the East of Accra. Taking a central motif, say a cocoa-pod or canoe, from the life of the deceased traditional coffin makers designed a casket to reflect the life and vocation of the departed. The rights to such designs, as well as to the designs of gold-smiths, state umbrella-makers and similar artists, were vested in the originator.