GH - ALBERTA OWUSU ANTWI v. THOMAS OWUSU ANTWI

OFOE,J.A:

In this delivery we will retain the description of the parties as they were in the trial court- the appellant we will refer to as the respondent and the respondent in this appeal we will refer to as the petitioner.

The relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner customarily got married to the respondent on the 17th of August 1996. After the marriage the petitioner lived in Abbosey Okai whilst the respondent lived in Japan. But in March 1998, petitioner left the shores of Ghana to join the husband, the respondent, in Japan. In September 2008, ie after about 10 years stay in Japan she was deported and compelled to leave all her belongings behind. Some were sent to her through the intervention of FIDA. The pleadings of the parties disclose that even before the deportation the marriage was going through trials. Having arrived in Ghana and finding no signs of its resuscitation the petitioner sought from the trial court dissolution of the marriage and other consequential reliefs were:

“2.An order that the petitioner is entitled to one half of the bedroom house lying and situate at Taifa.

3. An order that the petitioner is entitled to one half of all the vehicles namely, 3 Urvan buses and 1 Pajero4 x 4 vehicle.

4. An order that the respondent must ship all the petitioner’s personal effects to her in Ghana

5. An order that the respondent pays the petitioner a lump sum as financial provision.

6. Any further order or orders as to this Honourable Court may deem fit.

7. An order that the respondent be mulcted with costs of this suit”.

At the close of trial judgment was given the petitioner for 30 % of the value of the house in Taifa and a lump sum payment of GHC20,000.00 was ordered to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Aggrieved at these orders the respondent has appealed to this court on what we see to be three main grounds, to wit

I. The judgment is against the weight of evidence

II. In the face of preponderating evidence pointing to the fact that the Taifa property was single handedly acquired and constructed by the respondent before the marriage, His Lordship ignored the evidence and decreed that the Petitioner should have 30% share in its value. His Lordship’s wrong finding of facts has occasioned the respondent substantial miscarriage of justice

III. The award of a lump sum of GHC20,000.00 as financial provision was excessive, unreasonable and arbitrary as His Lordship did not consider the means of the respondent”.