2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against the Circuit Court, Kumasi's decision, which granted each party an equal share of a property following the dissolution of marriage. After evaluating contradictory testimonies and examining prior legal precedents, the appellate court found that the Petitioner contributed to the completion of the property during the marriage. Under current legal principles, including constitutional provisions, the court decreed a modification of the judgment, awarding two-thirds of the property to the Appellant and one-third to the Petitioner.
J U D G M E N T
A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J.A.
1. Before the Court in this matter is an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit Court, Kumasi, dated 29th October 2013 in which the trial judge granted half share of House No. 5, New Kagyase, Kumasi to the Petitioner and half share to the Appellant.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE:
The back drop to this appeal is that the Petitioner/Respondent (the Petitioner in the court below) in person filed a petition at the Circuit Court, Kumasi against the Respondent/Appellant (the Respondent in the court below) on the 14th of November 2012 claiming various reliefs, namely:-
a. An order confirming the dissolution of the customary marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent which was dissolved on 11th October 2012.
b. Maintenance allowance for the two children born out of the marriage
c. A declaration that the store room with the attached toilet and bath constructed by the Petitioner in the house is the property of the Petitioner
d. A declaration that two (2) bedrooms originally put up by the Respondent is the property of the Respondent
e. A half share of the remaining four bedrooms put up by the Petitioner during the subsistence of the marriage
f. An order granting the Petitioner custody of the two children as they are relatively minors
g. An order compelling the Respondent to give part of his share of the house to the two children born out of the marriage
h. That each party to bear his or her own costs.
The Respondent in the court below, in person filed his answer to the petition, cross-petitioned, and sought the following reliefs:-
I. That the marriage contracted between the Respondent and the Petitioner has already been dissolved and this move was initiated by the Petitioner herself.
II. That the Petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance allowance because it was the Petitioner herself who divorced the Respondent and the children are not staying with her.
III. That the Honourable Court after going into the matter will strike out the petitioner’s Petition as it is unwarranted in law
IV. That the Respondent states that the behaviour of the Petitioner necessitated the dissolution of the marriage contracted between the two parties and as custom demands the Petitioner who packed bag and baggage and left the Respondent’s bedroom is not entitled to any property belonging to the Respondent.
V. That an order of the Court be made granting custody of the children to the Respondent to take proper care of the