KWAME KWAAKO ANTWI v. OPHELIA PANU

J U D G M E N T

OFOE,J.A:

This is an appeal that had travelled all the way from the Adjabeng District Court where the plaintiff sued the defendant for

“1. Recovery of possession of the said rooms occupied by the defendant

2. Order to hand over keys to the other rooms in the said house

3. General Damages

4. Cost occasioned the suit and any other reliefs”.

The facts grounding these claims of the plaintiff are not complicated. They are that the defendant was the plaintiff’s acquaintance who plaintiff offered a room to occupy in his completed building located at Odorkor, Accra. He made this offer on the request of the defendant who had then been ejected from her rented accommodation. The defendant without his consent or permission has given out other rooms in the property to others and not accounting to him. This did not go down well with him and therefore requested the defendant to vacate the premises. The defendant has flatly refused. Hence this writ before the District Court.

The defendant’s position on the matter was that at all material times she was the wife of the plaintiff and had contributed to putting up the building, the subject matter of plaintiff’s claim. According to defendant she did not only supervise the construction of the building but also put in her own monies and monies remitted to her by the husband who was living outside, to get the building to the state it is now. Her defence in substance is that being a husband to the plaintiff and therefore in her matrimonial home and having contributed substantially to the construction of the property she cannot simply be ejected as the plaintiff is seeking to do.

After trial the district magistrate found that there was no marriage between the parties because the defendant failed to lead evidence to prove the marriage she alleged. In respect of a marriage certificate exhibited by the defendant as exhibit 1 and 1A purportedly issued under PNDC Law 112, the trial magistrate found these to have been fraudulently procured.

Amongst other issues was the construction of the property, the subject matter of the suit. Both parties made claims to certain additions made to the property. Defendant tendered receipts totaling 22m cedis as evidencing works she did on the property. She also admitted the plaintiff remitted to her 18m cedis. In respect of this 18m cedis she did not tender any receipts. Even though the trial magistrate wondered why this 18m cedis should not be part of the 22m cedis claimed