ACHIAMPONG v. ACHIAMPONG

JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.A.

The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court, Accra, dated 7 August 1981. It was the result of the outcome of proceedings brought under section 20(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), by the respondent. The appellant and the respondent both Ghanaians, were husband and wife, having been married under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap 127 (1951 Rev.), on 27 March 1971. The respondent (hereafter called the wife) was a graduate teacher in the Ministry of Education. At the relevant period the wife had been posted to the Teacher Training College, Accra. The appellant (hereafter called the husband) was a foreign service officer in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1977, differences arose between them because of the husband's adultery with other women, his constant assaults and raining of blows on the wife.

Matters having come to a head in 1978, the wife petitioned for divorce. Although the husband filed an answer, he did not in fact offer any evidence in support thereof. So for all practical purposes that suit was undefended. The High Court having found that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation granted the prayer of the wife and accordingly dissolved the marriage. By consent of both the husband and the wife, the custody of the two surviving children of the marriage, a boy and a girl, was given to the wife; and the husband was ordered to pay for their maintenance and education. The husband by further consent paid to the wife a lump sum of ¢4,000 as financial provision.

In her petition for divorce, the wife had claimed joint ownership in the following; (i) the matrimonial home at No. 4 Bourgainvillea Lane, Teshie-Nungua Estate, Accra; (ii) £1,000 savings with the Citibank, Copenhagen; (iii) a peugeot 504 saloon car No. GZ 7331; (iv) a Datsun 160J car No. GZ 5869; and (v) all the household items and furniture listed in a document attached to the petition and marked exhibit MYNA. 1. On the application of the wife the issue as to ownership was heard under the provisions of section 20(1) of Act 367. At the end of it all, the learned High Court judge accepted the claim of the wife and declared that she had a beneficial interest in equal shares with the husband in all those specific properties. It is against this declaration that the husband has appealed to this court.

Learned counsel for the husband, first argued ground 1 of the additional grounds, namely that the trial judge erred in holding that the house in dispu