GH - EMMANUEL K. AMOAKOHENE v. JULIANA AMOAKOHENE a.k.a MAAME SIKA

DORDZIE (MRS.), JSC:-

FACTS

The parties are a couple who married customarily in 1988. They were domiciled in Ghana and in the United States of America. On 10 May 1988, they formalized the relationship in a civil marriage ceremony in the United States of America. (This is borne out by exhibit one the marriage certificate) In the course of the marriage, they acquired two landed properties in Kumasi. The said properties are No. 23 Block ‘D’ Adiebeba-Kumasi, (which will be describe as property ‘A’) and Plot 1 Block C Kagyase Abuakwa, (which will be described as property ‘B’).

In or about the year 2011, the relationship between the parties grew sour, the customary marriage was dissolved as a result in that year and the civil marriage was later dissolved in the USA on 20 January 2015 the divorce certificate is part of the record before us.

After the dissolution of the customary marriage, the properties described above became subject matter of litigation between the parties.

The plaintiff / respondent / respondent herein initiated the litigation when he took out a writ in the High Court Kumasi for the following reliefs:

A declaration that House No. 23 Block ‘D’ Adiebeba-Kumasi is the personal property of the Plaintiff and therefore the sole owner entitled to eject Defendant from same,

Or in the alternative

A declaration that House Number 23 Block ‘D’ and another house situate at Kumasi in the sole name of the Defendant are the joint properties of the parties the same having been acquired during the subsistence of the marriage.

An order that both houses be proportioned equally between the parties in the event that the Court grants relief (2).

Any order(s) the Honourable Court deems just.

The defendant /Appellant / appellant resisted the claims and counter claimed as follows

A declaration that she is the sole owner of House No. 23 Block ‘D’, Adiebeba, Kumasi

A declaration that the house acquired in her sole name (Plot 1 Block C Kagyase Abuakwa) is her self-acquired property and that the plaintiff has no semblance of a right to same.

An order of injunction restraining the Plaintiff, his agents, servants, assigns, privies and those claiming through or under him or by him from in any manner interfering with the Defendant’s title and interest to the said properties.

Any order(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit.

For easy reference, the parties will hereafter be described as plaintiff and defendant.

The High court gave judgment to the plaintiff gr

AI Generated Summary

This case involves a property dispute between a divorced couple. The parties married customarily in 1988 and formalized their marriage in a civil ceremony in the United States of America. During the marriage, they acquired two properties in Kumasi: House No. 23 Block 'D' Adiebeba-Kumasi (property 'A') and Plot 1 Block C Kagyase Abuakwa (property 'B'). The customary marriage was dissolved in 2011 and the civil marriage was dissolved in the USA in 2015. The plaintiff initiated litigation in the High Court seeking a declaration that property 'A' was his personal property, or alternatively that both properties were joint properties. The defendant counterclaimed that she was the sole owner of both properties. The High Court granted the plaintiff's first relief and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the court found that both lower courts erred. The evidence showed that both parties admitted property 'A' was intended to be jointly owned, as evidenced by the Deed of Assignment bearing both names. Regarding property 'B', the defendant claimed it was acquired from her exclusive business, but admitted the capital came from their joint accounts. The Supreme Court applied Article 22(3)(b) of the 1992 Constitution and the 'equality is equity' principle. Considering that the plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the matrimonial home about 9 years ago and the defendant had been in occupation and responsible for its maintenance, the court ordered that the defendant remain in possession of property 'A' and the plaintiff take property 'B'. The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed.

Ask Case

Ask Case

EMMANUEL K. AMOAKOHENE v. JULIANA AMOAKOHENE a.k.a MAAME SIKA

Areas of Law