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.