ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID v. NANA YAA KONADU
June 8, 2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- V. D. OFOE J.A. (PRESIDING)
- K. A. ACQUAYE J.A.
- M. WELBOURNE (MRS) J.A
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Corporate Law
- Evidence Law
June 8, 2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal from a High Court’s divorce property orders, the Ghana Court of Appeal addressed whether a handwritten "Property Declaration" (Exhibit E) by Alhaji Abdul Rashid validly transferred multiple properties to his spouse, Nana Yaa Konadu. The High Court had dissolved the marriage and, treating Exhibit E as binding, awarded properties and directed Registrar-led valuations. The Court of Appeal held Exhibit E invalid for non-compliance with Section 40 of the Conveyancing Act and, to the extent any company assets were implicated, for failing to comply with the Companies Act. Discounting Exhibit E, the Court applied Article 22(3) and Supreme Court precedents to equitably redistribute assets: OTB 108/109 Adum to Konadu/Nayak Fisheries; 233 Osibisa Close, 21 Aviation Road, and 29 Official Road as 50–50; confirmed a gift to their daughter; and set aside Registrar directives, ordering parties to implement equal division.
JUDGEMENT
K. A. ACQUAYE, J.A.
The facts leading to this appeal are that the parties, both Ghanaians, got married under the Ordinance in 1977 and had two issues aged 29 years and 16 years as at 2009 when the petition was filed. The petitioner stated that they have not jointly acquired any properties except that they both have fifty percent shares each in Nayak Company Limited. According to the petitioner for the past ten years they have not enjoyed any meaningful or peaceful marriage and that due to certain deadly threats from the respondent she was compelled to desert the matrimonial home in 2009. The petitioner’s case was that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and petitioned for a dissolution of the said marriage and an order that the petitioner should continue to maintain the issues of the marriage.
The respondent admitted that the marriage between the parties had broken down beyond reconciliation but blamed the petitioner for the situation. The respondent vehemently denied that the parties have not jointly acquired any property and listed fourteen (14) landed properties jointly acquired by them as well as two companies, Nayak Group Limited and Nayak Fisheries Limited jointly owned by them in equal shares. The respondent thus cross-petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage, custody of Fatayi Rashid (aged 16 years) and an order for distribution of all properties jointly acquired by the parties as listed in the answer to the petition.
In her reply to the respondent’s answer the petitioner stated that six out of the fourteen landed properties listed by the respondent are vested exclusively in the petitioner as confirmed in a document prepared and signed by the respondent. The other seven landed properties all belong to Nayak Company Limited jointly owned by the parties in 50 % equal shares. The petitioner also stated that she is the sole owner of Nayak Fisheries Limited which operates in a building owned by Nayak Company Limited. The petitioner further answered that Nayak Company Limited also owned four separate plots of land in the Accra and Central Regions.
At the close of pleadings it being apparent that the marriage between the parties had broken down beyond reconciliation, the trial judge declared the marriage dissolved on 23rd September 2009 and proceeded to take evidence on the ancillary reliefs relating to the distribution of the properties acquired during the marriage
In her evidence the petitioner recounted how they tog