BENJAMIN AYISI ADDO VS CHARITY AKOSUA ASABEA
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JENNIFER DODOO (MRS)
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff, seeking compensation from the Defendant for unpaid company allowances following their divorce, invoked court judgments and mutual agreements. The court ruled that the post-judgment Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) superseded the earlier court decisions, mandating adherence to the MOU terms. Despite established entitlements under the MOU for the Plaintiff, evidence showed non-compliance by both parties. The court awarded the Plaintiff weekly payments of GH¢500 from specified dates until the final judgment or the company's sale, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to established agreements post-judgment.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant used to be married to each other.
The relationship between the parties has since broken down.
Thereafter, the parties who were joint shareholders of a Company Ephraim Gas Company Ltd had issues with the form the Company should take on the dissolution of their marriage.
As a result, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant the sums of GH¢34, 084. 40 and GH¢65, 000. 00 being allowance Plaintiff said were ordered by the court to be paid to him as shareholder for the period December 2004 to August 2011 and also the outstanding balance of weekly allowance due to Directors of Ephraim Gas Company Ltd from February 2012 to date respectively.
Plaintiff’s case as encapsulated in his Statement of Claim was that he had instituted a prior action against the Defendant in Suit No. OCC/4/2007 entitled Benjamin Ayisi Addo v. Charity Akosua Asabea.
Judgment had been given in his favour affirming that he was a 50% shareholder in Ephraim Gas Company Ltd. He stated that whilst the case was pending in court, he had applied for and obtained an interim order in which both parties were to be paid an allowance of GH¢700. 00 each pending final determination of the issues between them.
The Plaintiff averred further that they eventually managed to arrive at an amicable settlement in which the Plaintiff was to be paid a weekly allowance of GH¢500. 00 until the property was sold.
It was the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant had reneged on this agreement by only paying GH¢1, 000. 00 representing only 2 weeks allowance.
It was his case that the Defendant had arrogated to herself the benefits of the company and had refused to abide by the very terms of settlement that they themselves had signed.
This amount had now ballooned into the sum he had sued for . e. GH¢34, 080. 40. The Defendant in her defence stated that judgment was given for the Plaintiff in part and for her as Defendant in part as both she and the Plaintiff were to be paid GH¢70. 00 per week each from the business operations of the company.
In addition, an allowance of GH¢40. 00 per week was to be made for the upkeep of the children of the marriage.
She stated that in view of this arrangement, she first made provision for the weekly payments for the children’s upkeep.
Any money left over from the operations of the company would then be paid over to herself and the Plaintiff.
She contended that since the parties had by consent, vacated the judgment of the court and instituted th