KWAME OWUSU vs MARY ROCKSON
June 25, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
June 25, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A Ghana High Court, per Justice Nicholas M. C. Abodakpi, decided an appeal arising from divorce-related property disputes between a German-resident husband and his spouse, a long-time trader who maintained the marital home. The trial magistrate had awarded the three-bedroom matrimonial house to the wife; on appeal, the husband argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and challenged admissibility. Reviewing the record de novo under the Evidence Act, the High Court found that beyond the initially built apartment, substantial developments and acquisitions at Taifa (including shops and a guest house), Dawhenya, Sarpeiman, and Prampram occurred during the marriage. Applying Mensah v Mensah, Boafo v Boafo, and Arthur v Arthur, the court held such assets were marital property subject to equitable sharing, rejecting the substantial contribution test and finding no miscarriage of justice. Orders directed transfer of the matrimonial home and shops to the wife, with alimony and costs affirmed.
1. BACKGROUND
FACTS
The Petitioner/Appellant herein had been lawfully married to the Respondent/Respondent herein.
They have lived as couple for more than twenty years.
The Petitioner was ordinarily resident in Germany but visited frequently, when on his annual leave.
And it is Respondent who maintains the marital home, when Appellant is away in Germany.
She has been engaged in trading since she got married to the Appellant.
The Appellant has alleged that just two years into their marriage the Respondent had deceived him that she was pregnant when that was not the case.
And also adopted a child without his knowledge and poisoned his food on two different occasions.
The Appellant also alleged that he had bought land in Respondent’s name and built a house for her.
In conclusion, it is his case that for about six years before filing for divorce they have not co-habited.
And therefore, the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and must be dissolved.
He also claimed custody of a child/daughter of the relationship.
FACTS - RESPONDENT
The Respondent cross - petitioned:
(a) For dissolution of the marriage
(b) And an order for reasonable access to the adopted child of the marriage
(c) Compensation for 20 years serving the Petitioner.
d) An order of the Court directing the couple to share all assets or properties jointly acquired during the 30 years period.
e) An order directing the Petitioner to pay an alimony or send-off money to Respondent who is old and is not likely to get a new husband.
f) Maintenance of the child i. e. feeding, school fees, health care etc.
g) The Petitioner should provide the Respondent with an accommodation worthy of sort to live in.
On the averments made against her, she denied the allegation about false pregnancy, and stated she had been pregnant at the time but the child was still born.
She stated, she later on adopted a child from Social Welfare, but did not seek the full consent of Appellant before adopting the child.
She denied stealing the child as alleged by the Appellant.
Furthermore, she denied the allegation of putting poison in Appellant’s food.
And explained that they had both eaten from the same plate on the day in question.
a) GROUNDS OF APPEAL
There is only one ground of appeal:
(i) That the judgment is against the weight of Evidence adduced before the trial Court.
b) RELIEFS SOUGHT
(i) That the trial Magistrate erred when she held that he three (3)bedroom house being the matrimonial