By customary law it was only the chief, the occupant of the stool, and the principal elders or some of them who could validly alienate stool land. It was thus necessary to determine who those elders were on the totality of the evidence on the record. On the evidence, the plaintiffs were elders of the Appolonia stool, but they were not the only elders. Accordingly, even though they should be invited t6 att~nd, their presence at a meeting to alienate Appolonia stool land was not a sine qua non. Since it was clear that the plaintiffs had voluntarily distanced themselves from the chief and the other elders, their action would fail. Aliotey v Abrahams; Tamakloe v Abrahams (1957) 3 W ALR 280 cited.