ARAMATU ABDUL SALAM v. AMINATA HADJARA

DENNIS ADJEI, J.A:

The defendant/appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court Cape Coast delivered on 23rd July,2012 filed an appeal to this court on 12th October,2012.

The facts of the case before the trial High Court were that the plaintiff who is the uterine sister of the defendant but with different fathers brought an action against her for a declaration of title to the disputed land with No. 67 D, Bantama Elmina and the building thereon and order for ejectment and an order for perpetual injunction.

The house was acquired in the name of the plaintiff by his father. The property was bought in the name of the plaintiff on 9th September 1985. The lease on the land was registered on 23rd April, 1986 with registration number CCE 738/85. The defendant on the other hand alleged that the house was jointly bought by the plaintiff’s father and their mother and was therefore the joint property of the couple. She was therefore claiming title through her mother’s half share of the property.

The trial Judge granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff after having made a finding of fact that the plaintiff’s father validly made a customary gift of the land and the property thereon to the plaintiff. The basis for the findings of fact was that once his father bought the house in his name and registered same, the father intended to make a customary gift to him.

The defendant dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court filed an appeal against same. The five grounds of appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment as follows:

“i. That the judgment is against the weight of evidence

ii. That the trial court failed adequately or at all to consider the substantial contribution of the Defendant/Appellant, her paternal siblings and her mother (now deceased) in constructing the three bed roomed House No. 67 D/5 Bantama-Elmina and wrongly held that the part played by the Defendant/Appellant, her paternal siblings and her mother (now deceased) was a mere assistance given by wife married under customary law and her children to the Respondent’s father.

iii. The trial court erred in holding that House No. 67 D/5 Bantama – Elmina jointly built by the Defendant’s/Appellants mother and the Respondent’s father (i.e. Appellant’s step father) at a time when the Appellant’s mother was married to the Appellant’s mother and the Respondent’s father thus erroneously held that the Appellant’s late mother had no share in the three-bed roomed House No. 67 D