May 4, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Kulendi JSC, heard an appeal from the Court of Appeals partial affirmation of a High Court divorce judgment involving property distribution and financial provision between spouses married under the ordinance. The Appellant sought to invalidate the Respondents counsels filings based on an alleged lack of a valid practising licence; the Court refused to entertain the issue because fresh evidence had been denied in the Court of Appeal and objections must be raised timeously, with facts on the record. Substantively, the Court affirmed the award of one vehicle (GN 902-13) and GHC200,000 financial provision to the Respondent, applying the rebuttable presumption that property acquired during marriage is matrimonial. It set aside settlement of the Apramang H/No. Plot 12 house as property settlement because it was acquired before marriage and not jointly acquired. Recognizing a Kokobeng/Oti Wood Village property acquired in 2013 during the marriage and noting the Appellants concession, the Court settled that property solely on the Respondent, and declared the appeal succeeded in part.
KULENDI JSC:-
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 29th April, 2021 by which judgment the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal affirmed in part, the judgment of the High Court dated 8th July, 2020. The Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant (the Appellant), dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, invokes the appellate jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to a Notice of Appeal filed on 24th May, 2021.
BACKGROUND:
The parties who on 16th January, 2002 married under the ordinance, commenced divorce proceedings at the High Court, Kumasi to untie the marital knot and go their separate ways. Therefore, by a petition filed on 9th November, 2015, the Appellant prayed for the dissolution of the marriage on account of alleged unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent/Respondent/Respondent (the Respondent). The Appellant’s contention of unreasonable behaviour was premised on allegations of Respondent’s disrespect and neglect of the children of the marriage, among others.
The Respondent entered an appearance to the petition and thereafter filed her answer on 3rd December, 2015. The Respondent denied that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. She alleged that “judging by the love and undying emotion that she has for the Petitioner and has consistently shown during the duration of the marriage it stretches credulity to say that this happy union has broken down beyond reconciliation.” The Respondent further claimed that even after the Appellant left the matrimonial home, the parties have engaged in consensual love-making whenever the Appellant visited the matrimonial home. Consequently, the Respondent prayed that the “petition be dismissed as wholly unmeritorious and irreparably misconceived”.
Following this answer to the petition, and the apparent reconciliatory posture of the Respondent, the parties sought and obtained a series of adjournments to enable them attempt an amicable resolution of their differences. As a result, it was not until 20th January, 2017 that the Court commenced trial due to a breakdown in the efforts at a settlement.
In the course of the trial, the Respondent changed her lawyer, sought and obtained leave and amended her answer to the petition and cross-petitioned on 13th June, 2018 for the following reliefs:
"1. An order of the Honourable Court dissolving the marriage celebrated
between her and the Petitioner.
2. That the Petitioner provides the Respondent with a lump sum