GIDEON AYIKU AKROFI & ORS v. CECILIA NKETIA ACHEAMPONG
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- V. D. OFOE, JA (Presiding)
- G. S. SUURBAAREH, JA
- E. BAAH, JA
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2021
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On appeal in a consolidated dispute over House No. 137, Haatso, the Court of Appeal, per OFOE JA, resolved competing claims by husband Martin Adane, wife Cecilia Nketia Acheampong, and purchaser Gideon Ayiku. It accepted evidence of a 1984 customary divorce and a 2007 remarriage, classifying the house—constructed between 1988 and 1992—as acquired during concubinage rather than marriage. The court found the building was financed by Adane’s public service loans, with Cecilia’s role limited to assistance and housekeeping, insufficient to establish joint ownership. Although it rejected the trial court’s view that Ayiku was a bona fide purchaser without notice—because he failed to inquire of the resident wife—the court upheld the validity of Adane’s sale, holding no retroactive spousal consent requirement and recognizing Ayiku’s Land Title Certificate. It set aside improper property settlements at Suma Ahenkro, ordered ejectment against Cecilia, and granted Ayiku declaration and possession, dismissing Cecilia’s counterclaims.
OFOE, J.A
This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court in respect of a consolidated suit, Suit No FAL641/11 and AL 77/2011 in which the defendant in suit No FAL 641/2011 and plaintiff in suit No AL77/2011 are the appellants before us. Defendant in both suits is the wife of the plaintiff in suit No AL/77/2011. On reading the pleadings filed in respect of suit No 641/2011 what comes out mainly for determination is whether the plaintiff in suit No 77/2011, Mr Martin Adane, had legal competence to have sold the disputed property, House No 137/ Haatso to the plaintiff (Gideon Ayiku) in suit No FAL641/2011. Defendant in both suits, Cecilia Acheampong, challenges the sale claiming she is a wife to Mr Adane and a joint owner of the said property so it cannot be sold without her consent to Mr Gideon Ayiku.
For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to Mr Adane as the cross appellant, and the defendant in both suits, Cecilia Acheampong, as the appellant. Mr Gideon Ayiku shall be referred to as the respondent.
Before we present the brief of the case of the parties from their pleadings it is worth keeping in mind these notes. The cross appellant has been in occupation of property No 137, Haatso, with the appellant and children for a considerable number of years. At the trial court the appellant contended that they have been together in occupation of this property for the past 22 years. The cross appellant, contending that the property is his self-acquired property has sold it to the respondent and relocated to his home town from where the appellant also hails. The appellant claiming that she is a joint owner of the said property challenged the sale and refused to give vacant possession of the house to the respondent. Both cross appellant and respondent sued, amongst others, to recover possession of the property from the appellant. In the High Court the cross appellant, Mr Martin Adane, sued the defendant (described herein as appellant) in suit No AL 77/2011 for:
“1. Declaration of title to and recovery of possession of the House No 137, Haatso.
2. Ejectment of the defendant, her agents, heirs, personal representatives, executors and assigns from the house in dispute.
3. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, her heirs, personal representatives, executors, agents and assigns from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the property by the purchaser”.
The plaintiff in suit No FAL641/2011, Mr Gideon Ayiku (described as respondent herein) sued th