LYDIA KWAO v. PASCAL MUAKO TCHEMCO

OWUSU (MS.), JSC:-

On 20th July, 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Court held among other things as follows:

“Finally, for the reasons given in this judgment, the appeal fails and subject to the exclusion of the Nissan X-Terra from the properties ordered to be shared equally by the parties, the judgment of the trial court dated the 10th of December, 2015 is hereby affirmed.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on the following grounds:

That the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the decision of the trial court that the appellant’s properties as contained in the petition be shared equally between the parties.

That the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

That further grounds of appeal may be filed upon receipt of a certified full copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Before dealing with the arguments canvassed in support and against this appeal, we will give a brief background of the case.

The appellant in this case is a Camerounian born and a Canadian citizen. He is a businessman who deals in the importation and sale of used clothes which he imports from Canada to Ghana, Cameroun and Guinea for sale whilst the respondent is a Ghanaian trader in used cloths. The parties met in the course of their trading activities. Subsequently, the appellant married the respondent customarily at Nkoranza, in the then Brong Ahafo Region sometime in 2003 in the presence of the respondent’s family.

The parties converted their marriage into an ordinance one as evidence by the Marriage Certificate dated 30th August, 2003, Exhibit ‘A’. They also stayed together and co-habited in their matrimonial home at Aplaku anytime the appellant visited Ghana from 2003 to 2011. The respondent filed for a decree of nullity on the ground that the marriage is by law void and that, the respondent be granted a share in all the assets in Ghana acquired by the parties and or acquired after the formation of PASCO M & SONS LTD. and costs.

In his amended answer and cross petition, the appellant denied that he is legally married to the respondent. He also denied that the respondent made financial contribution towards the acquisition of any of the properties as the latter was a destitute living in abject poverty when they met. The appellant therefore cross-petitioned for:

A declaration that the marriage between the parties is null and void an