January 26, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a matrimonial dispute between a Ghanaian couple, the Supreme Court of Ghana (per Justice M. Owusu) dismissed an appeal by the husband, resident in Holland, and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the High Court’s judgment. The Respondent-wife, resident in Ghana, sought dissolution, custody, maintenance, and settlement of property including a thirteen-bedroom house at Adjiriganor and a KIA Sportage. The husband entered appearance but filed no answer. The trial court found, on the wife’s unchallenged testimony, that the husband owned two other houses and, applying Article 22(3)(b) and Mensah v Mensah, settled the Adjiriganor house on the wife. On appeal, the husband advanced multiple grounds, including weight of evidence, jurisdiction based on Terms of Settlement, and equitable distribution. The Supreme Court held that unchallenged evidence could be accepted; the Terms of Settlement were filed out of time and not adopted, so they did not bind or oust jurisdiction; and the High Court’s distribution aligned with Article 22(3). The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal’s judgment affirmed.
OWUSU (MS.) JSC:-
On 14th November, 2019, the Court of Appeal, Accra, dismissed the Respondent/Appellant/Appellant’s appeal in its entirety and affirmed the judgment of the High Court dated 18th December, 2015. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant filed an appeal to this Court on the following Grounds:
a.That the judgment is against the weight of evidence on record before the court.
b.The learned judges of the Court of Appeal, with respect, erred when they disregarded the Terms of Settlement signed by the parties.
c.The Court of Appeal, with respect, erred when it failed to uphold that the failure of the trial High Court to determine the matter based only on the outstanding matters identified by the parties under the Terms of Settlement denuded the trial High Court of jurisdiction to try the matter without paying regard to the Terms of Settlement.
d.The Court of Appeal with respect fell into the same error as the trial High Court when it assumed jurisdiction to hear the matter resulting in a judgment at variance with the binding agreement of the parties under the Terms of Settlement.
e.The Court of Appeal, with respect, erred when it failed to hold that the Terms of Settlement signed and filed by the parties effectively ended the dispute between the parties, thus limiting the dispute in terms confined by the Terms of Settlement.
f.The Court of Appeal, with respect, erred when it failed to hold that the trial High Court did not give the Appellant a fair hearing when the trial High Court settled a whole property in favour of the Respondent without any specific provision for the Appellant thereby occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice.
g.The Court of Appeal, with respect, failed to carry out substantial justice when it struck out grounds 2 and 4 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal on procedural grounds despite the substantial jurisdictional argument raised and argued thereunder.
On 25th February, 2021, pursuant to leave granted by this court, the Appellant amended Ground (g) of his Ground of appeal to read:
g.The Court of Appeal erred in law when it failed to hold that the High Court violated the constitutional provisions imposing on Courts a duty to distribute matrimonial assets equitably.
Particulars of Error of Law:
i. By settling the only alleged Matrimonial Property on Record in the Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent without evidence as to the existence of other assets jointly acquired during marriage