AGNES POKUA v. MRS. REGINA ODURO CUDJOE & EBENEZER MANFORD CUDJOE

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J A):

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court sitting at Tema dated 19th July 2017 on the following grounds

i. The Learned trial Judge erred when he stated at page 3 of the Judgment that “a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudged the Tema property as joint property of the Defendants”

ii. The Learned judge erred when he stated at page 5 of the judgment that having divested her interest in the Tema property Plaintiff in turn disposed of her interest in the property to the 2nd Defendant.

iii. The Learned Judge erred when he stated in paragraph 6 of the judgment that the construction of permanent structure on the Land meant that the Plaintiff had disposed of her interest

iv. The Learned Judge erred when he stated in paragraph 7 when he stated that grounds rets paid to Tema Development Corporation were ever paid from monies provided by the Plaintiff and therefore she could not be said to be the owner of the property

v. The Learned Judge erred when he decreed, on presumption that the Plaintiff had sold the property to the Defendants

vi. The Judgment is against the weight of evidence adduced at the trial

vii. Additional issues maybe filed later on receipt of the proceedings

Contrary to the last mentioned, no additional grounds were filed. The parties will be referred to by their designations in the High Court in this judgment.

The background facts that are relevant to the present appeal are that upon the dissolution of the marriage between the 1st and 2nd Defendants by the Circuit Court on 21st March 2014, the court, treating the present property as one acquired during the marriage held that it was jointly owned by them.

The Plaintiff claiming to be owner issued a notice of claim and followed up with the present writ (when according to her the Registrar was delaying in issuing the interpleader summons) against both the Defendants for a declaration that she is the owner of the property in dispute. Both Defendants filed defences and the 1st Defendant counterclaimed for declaration of title to the disputed property, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and costs.

It is the dismissal of her claim which has led to the present appeal on the grounds earlier stated. She seeks from this court a reversal of the judgment in question and an entry of judgment in her favour instead.

The arguments by the Plaintiff in support of these grounds in sum are that

a) The 1st defendant having failed to satisfy the cond