ABDUL-AZIZ ABU MUSAH v. VIVIAN ABU MUSAH
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- S. E. KANYOKE, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- A. M. A DORDZIE, J. A.
- G. TORKORNOO, J. A.
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a couple married in 1998 seeking dissolution in 2011. The trial court found the house they lived in was completed during the marriage and deemed it joint property based on the Respondent's contributions. The Appellant contested, arguing the house was nearly complete before marriage. The appeal court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that non-cash contributions are valuable in evaluating joint contributions and highlighting the constitutional provision for equal access to jointly acquired property. The decision was supported by precedents and provisions from the 1992 Constitution and Matrimonial Causes Act.
G. TORKORNOO, J. A: The couple in this appeal got married in 1998 and came to court for dissolution of their marriage in 2011.
At the time they came to court, the Petitioner/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant), lived in the outhouse of the matrimonial home, H/No 52 Lashibi, Tema and the Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter refereed to as Respondent), lived in the main house with their children.
In his judgment, the learned trial judge found that the couple had lived as a husband and wife for 14 years.
He settled from the evidence that the land on which the matrimonial home stood was acquired by Appellant and his first witness PW1 and the Appellant’s portion of the land is where his property is situate.
He also settled that ‘the parties moved into the house in 1998 at the time the main building was being built and was not completed.’ He held that ‘the outhouse and main house was completed during the pendency of the marriage’. (page 181 of ROA and page 8 of the judgment). After reviewing the evidence on whether the Respondent’s contribution to family life should be such as to entitle her to a share of the property, he held that ‘the Respondent did sacrifice to enable the Petitioner put up the Lashibi house’. He went on further to hold that ‘relying on the authority of Mensah vrs. Mensah and Quartson vrs. Quartson both Supreme Court cases,… H/no C52 Lashibi Tema is joint property of the parties.’ He further held that the house ‘was meant to be a family asset because the parties and children lived in it after it was built and that it’s the matrimonial home’ (page 182 of ROA and page 9 of the judgment). He further ordered the Appellant to pay the sum of 25,000 GHC to the Respondent as post divorce settlement ‘to set her up in business’, pay 500 GHC on the first day of every month for the upkeep of the children, and the school and medical bills of the children when they fall due, as well as take care of their life needs.
In this appeal the Appellant raises 5 grounds of appeal against the judgment:
a. That the trial judge erred in fact when he held that the outhouse and main house were completed during the pendency of the marriage.
b. That the trial judge erred in law and in fact when he held that H/No 52 Lashibi, Tema is joint property of the parties.
c. That the trial judge wrongly applied the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Mensah v Mensah 2012 SCGLR 391 and Quartson v Quartson (Civil Appeal No J4/8/2012). d