Management of Stool or Skin Property in Ghana: Legal Principles and Practices

Seth Doe

Assisted by 

Sarah Asante , Philipa Hagan , Ewurama Mongson

MANAGEMENT OF STOOL OR SKIN PROPERTY IN GHANA

1. Introduction

Stool and skin lands form the backbone of Ghana’s customary land tenure system. Unlike private ownership, stool and skin lands are communal assets held in trust for the people. The management of these lands, therefore, carries constitutional, statutory, fiduciary, and customary obligations. Chiefs and traditional authorities are not absolute owners. They function as trustees and fiduciaries whose powers are strictly regulated by law.

This article examines the constitutional foundation, statutory framework, customary principles, and judicial authorities governing the management of stool and skin property in Ghana, with particular emphasis on consent requirements, fiduciary accountability, litigation authority, revenue administration, and protection of communal interests.

2. Meaning and Legal Character of Stool and Skin Lands

2.1 Constitutional Meaning

Article 295(1) of the 1992 Constitution provides that:

“Stool” includes a skin and the person or body of persons having control over the skin land.

“Stool land” includes land or any interest controlled by a stool or skin for the benefit of subjects.

This definition expands stool land beyond physical territory to include proprietary rights and interests exercised by traditional authorities on behalf of communities.

2.2 Statutory Meaning

Section 281 of the Land Act, 2020 (Act 1036) adopts a similar formulation and further clarifies that stool land includes community-controlled land administered by customary authorities as representatives of the people.

2.3 Dual Ownership Structure

Stool or skin land embodies a dual proprietary structure:

• Allodial title vests in the stool or skin
• Usufructuary interest vests in individual subjects

This structure is affirmed under Section 9 of Act 1036.

Thus, chiefs do not own stool lands personally. They hold land as trustees for the community.

3. Constitutional Vesting and Trust Relationship

3.1 Vesting Under Article 267

Article 267(1) of the Constitution states:

“All stool lands in Ghana shall vest in the appropriate stool on behalf of, and in trust for, the subjects of the stool in accordance with customary law and usage.”

This provision creates a constitutional trust relationship. The stool becomes a trustee. The subjects are beneficiaries. The chief becomes the managing fiduciary.

This trust relationship imposes enforceable legal obligations similar to trusteeship under equity.

3.2 Legal Implications of Trust Status

Once land is vested in trust:

• The chief cannot appropriate the stool land for personal benefit
• The chief cannot permanently alienate communal ownership
• The chief must act for collective welfare
• Abuse of authority attracts legal sanctions

This trust principle underlies all statutory and judicial regulation of stool land management.

4. Statutory Control Under the Land Act 2020

4.1 Vesting and Protection of Communal Title

Section 9(1) of Act 1036 repeats the constitutional vesting of stool, skin, clan, and family lands vested in customary authorities on behalf of and in trust for members.

4.2 Prohibition of Freehold Creation

Section 9(2) provides:

“A person shall not create an interest in stool or skin land which vests in any person a freehold interest howsoever described.”

This is a statutory protection of communal ownership. It prevents chiefs from permanently transferring the allodial title.

4.3 Preservation of Usufruct Rights

Section 9(3) preserves the inherent right of subjects to acquire usufructuary interests in vacant land.

This ensures individual beneficial use without destroying communal ownership.

5. Judicial Interpretation of Stool Land Vesting

5.1 Nii Omaboe v Attorney-General and Lands Commission

This case clarified the effect of Article 267 on lands vested in the State before 1992.

The Supreme Court held that Article 267 did not retroactively convert State lands into stool lands. Only lands that retained stool character at the time of promulgation remained stool lands. The High Court subsequently applied this interpretation and held that Accra-Tema City lands previously vested in the State retained their State character.

This decision protects statutory vesting instruments and avoids constitutional conflict.

6. Territorial Control and Sub-Stool Authority

6.1 James Town (Alata) Stool v Sempe Stool

The Supreme Court faced competing stool claims within a metropolitan area.

The court held:

• Sub-stools retain independent territorial jurisdiction
• Ownership is determined by predominant occupation and settlement patterns

Courts may divide disputed territory based on evidence of customary control.

This case establishes that stool land boundaries are determined by historical occupation, not mere political hierarchy.

7. Authority of Chiefs to Grant Stool Land

7.1 Akwei v Awuletey

The Osu stool case clarified internal authority limits.

The court held that the Osu Mantse is the primary authority over Osu stool lands.

However, grants affecting outskirt lands require consultation with relevant quarter heads and elders.

This demonstrates that stool authority is not unilateral. It is embedded in layered customary governance.

8. Skin Lands and Northern Customary Practice

8.1 Saaka v Daahali

The court held that the Tamale chief validly granted usufruct land to a Dagomba subject. The interest passed by inheritance to the daughter. A caretaker could not override the beneficiary’s rights.

This case affirms that skin lands operate under the same trust-based customary tenure as stool lands.

9. Consent Requirements in Alienation of Stool Lands

9.1 Allotey v Abrahams

This is the leading authority on stool land alienation. Ollennu J established five core principles:

• Indispensable Role of the Chief- No valid transaction can occur without the stool occupant.
• Prima Facie Invalidity- A conveyance lacking stool occupant consent is initially ineffective.
• Curable Defects- Defects may be cured if ratification or authorization is proven.
• Burden of Proof- Persons alleging lack of consent must prove it.
• Doctrine of Estoppel- Delay in challenging transactions may bar relief.

This case balances customary authority with transactional certainty.

9.2 Agbloe v Sappor

The court held, “Family land cannot be sold except by the head of the family with concurrence of elders.” The same principle applies to stool lands. Authority must flow from the recognized custodian.

9.3 Amankwanor v Asare

The court held that:

Transactions lacking the involvement of a linguist or elders are defective

Documents executed only between individuals and chiefs without customary representatives lack binding force.

This case reinforces procedural legitimacy under customary law.

10. Fiduciary Duties of Chiefs Under Statute

10.1 Statutory Fiduciary Status

Section 13(2) of Act 1036 declares: Chiefs, clan heads, tendanas, and family heads are fiduciaries accountable for stool land management.

10.2 Criminal Liability

Section 13(4) imposes penalties:

• Fine between 5,000 and 10,000 penalty units
• Imprisonment between 5 and 10 years
• Or both

This transforms fiduciary breach from a civil issue into a criminal offence.

10.3 Enumerated Fiduciary Obligations

Chiefs owe:

• Duty of loyalty
• Duty of care
• Duty of stewardship
• Duty of fairness
• Duty of transparency
• Duty of accountability
• Duty to obtain consent
• Duty to act within authority

These duties align customary governance with modern fiduciary standards.

11. Revenue Administration and Financial Accountability

11.1 Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands

Article 267(2) establishes this office to:

• Collect stool land revenue
• Maintain accounts
• Disburse funds

11.2 Revenue Sharing Formula

Article 267(6):

• 10 percent administrative costs
• 25 percent stool maintenance
• 20 percent traditional authority
• 55 percent District Assembly

This formula ensures local development and prevents revenue monopolization.

12. Protection of Communal Equality

Section 11 of Act 1036 prohibits discrimination based on:

• Gender
• Ethnicity
• Religion
• Disability
• Social status

This overrides discriminatory customary practices and promotes constitutional equality.

13. Institutional Record Keeping

13.1 Customary Land Secretariats

Section 14 mandates the establishment of Customary Land Secretariats.

13.2 Functions Under Section 15

These include:

• Recording land transactions
• Maintaining ownership records
• Submitting quarterly reports to the Lands Commission and OASL

This institutionalizes transparency.

14. Litigation Authority Over Stool Lands

14.1 Procedural Law

Order 4 Rule 9 of CI 47 provides: Only stool occupants, regents, or caretakers may sue or be sued on behalf of stools.

14.2 Judicial Position

In Gyamfi v Owusu and Bukuruwa v Kumawu Stool, courts held that private individuals lack locus standi in stool land litigation.

14.3 Exceptions to Exclusive Authority

In Kwan v Nyieni and extended in Owusu v Agyei, courts allowed members to sue where:

• Stool land is in danger of loss
• Chiefs refuse to act
• Chiefs abuse authority

This prevents abuse of custodial power.

15. Accountability Proceedings Against Chiefs

Section 13(5) and (6) of Act 1036 incorporates PNDC Law 114.

Subjects must:

• Exhaust customary remedies
• Establish standing
• Obtain court leave if necessary

This balances judicial oversight with customary dispute resolution.

16. Conclusion

The management of stool and skin properties in Ghana is no longer governed solely by tradition. It is now a sophisticated legal regime combining constitutional trust principles, statutory fiduciary obligations, institutional oversight, and judicial enforcement.

Chiefs are custodians, not owners. Their authority exists for the benefit of the people and future generations. Ghana’s land law has therefore evolved into a system that preserves cultural identity while imposing modern accountability standards.