ATO ARHIN v. PHILOMINA APPIAH

Irene Charity Larbi (Mrs) J.A

(1) This is an appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court, Cape Coast dated 18th March, 2016.

(2) The parties married under Custom around 1996. After the Customary Marriage, the Petitioner/Respondent who was then domiciled in Italy went back while the Respondent/Appellant continued to stay in Cape-Coast. The Respondent/Appellant later joined Petitioner/Respondent in Italy briefly. Thereafter they returned to Ghana and lived at Brafoyaw a Suburb of Cape-Coast.

(3) In 1998, the parties converted their customary marriage into an Ordinance Marriage. The parties acquired properties together both in concubinage and during the subsistence of their marriage. They also sojourned to Europe and United States of America (USA) for greener pastures and returned later to settle in Ghana having acquired some wealth together. Amongst the properties they acquired is House Number MJNI Moree Junction, which the Court declared as joint property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage. However, the marriage did not produce any children.

(4) The marriage turned sour when the Respondent/Appellant discovered that the Petitioner/Respondent has fathered a child out of wedlock. It is out of the subsequent degeneration of the marriage that the Petitioner/Appellant filed for divorce upon the grounds that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation as follows that:-

· The Respondent/Appellant made the home insecure for him to stay, rained insult on him at will, is extremely jealous and would not allow him to visit his only child and that the parties sometimes engaged in fights. The Petitioner/ Respondent contended that their differences could not be resolved by family members.

· The Respondent/Appellant refuted the claims contained in the averments of Petitioner/Respondent but agreed with the Petitioner/Respondent in her cross-petition for dissolution of the marriage with the reason that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and prayed for ancillary reliefs.

(5) During the trial, it was established that the parties during the subsistence of the marriage had acquired properties which were to be shared lawfully. Thus on 12th December, 2014 the Circuit Court delivered its judgment.

It is worthy to state that there was no contention as to the joint ownership of the properties nor to their sharing.

(6) This appeal hinges solely on the ruling of the Circuit Court dated 14th March, 2016 dismissing the argument of the Resp