DR. OWUSU AFRIYIE AKOTO v. ADWOA ABREFI AKOTO

ATUGUBA, J.S.C:

The facts of this case as gleaned from the Petitioner / Appellant /Appellant’s statement of case and the judgment of the court of appeal are as follows: The Appellant and the Respondent who were husband and wife got married by custom in July 1974. The marriage was converted into a monogamous marriage under ordinance in Cambridge England on July 16, 1976. After the said marriage the couple cohabitated mainly in the United Kingdom and apparently had a blissful relationship that was blessed with three issues from 1974-1997, when the Respondent discovered two letters that caused the otherwise blissful marriage to unravel leading to the Appellant filing for divorce on August 29, 1997 while the Respondent was still in England. Nineteen days later the Respondent filed a Cross Petition for the dissolution of the marriage and other ancillary reliefs which included properties both within and outside the jurisdiction, as follows:

“(a) dissolving the marriage,

(b) declaring her a joint beneficial owner of House No. 38/39 BLK 01/115 East Legon, Accra

(c) declaring her a joint beneficial ownder of 5 Kingsfield Road, EALING W5 ILD London, U.K.

(d) declaring her a joint beneficial owner of 18 Chatsworth Avenue Wembley Middlesex U.K.

(e) declaring that she is entitled to one half of the net income from the rent of 5 Kingsfiled Road EALING W5 ILD London, a property jointly owned by both parties,

(f) that the Appellant pays her a lump sum settlement

(g) that the Appellant maintains the children of the marriage

(h) that she be given custody of Owusu Akoto Jnr. the Minor child with reasonable access to the Appellant, and

(i) that she be granted such other reliefs as the Court may deem fit.”

The Respondent was successful both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The areas of the appellant’s dissatisfaction are as stated per Aduama-Osei J.A delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal at p. 623 of the Record of appeal as follows:

“the settled principle which he Appellant contends have been disturbed by the trial court are in two areas: one is in respect of the jurisdiction of the court over immovable properties situated abroad and one in respect of the separate legal existence of a limited liability company from its members. We find therefore that in their Written Submissions, Counsel for the Appellant question the jurisdiction of the trial court to deal with immovable properties situated in the United Kingdom, outside its jurisdiction and als