MADAM AKOSUA SOSU v. KWAME KLUTSE, WILLIAM ONENAKU NTOW

JUDGMENT

AKOTO BAMFO (MRS) J.S.C.:-

On the 26th of November 2009, the Court of Appeal, by a unanimous decision dismissed in its entirety the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment of the High Court dated the 14th of February of 2005. The said judgment was entered in favour of the respondent before this court.

The appellant (as plaintiff) commenced an action in the High Court against the respondent the (2nd defendant therein) and her husband, the 1st defendant claiming these reliefs;

(a) A declaration that the purported sale of H/No. A 725; Dansoman, Accra by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant without the consent and concurrence of the plaintiff is null and void as the said property is jointly owned by both plaintiff and the 1st defendant.

(b) An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents or assigns from interfering with the plaintiff’s use of the said property.

(c) An order for the recovery of the said property.

The events culminating in the instant appeal have been faithfully recounted by both the High Court and Court of Appeal in their judgments. We do not therefore propose to set them out in extenso; suffice it to say that at the end of the proceedings before the High Court; it entered judgment for the respondent. The appellant lodged a protest against the High Court decision by filling a Notice of Appeal consisting of 4 grounds seeking for a reversal of the whole judgment of the 14th of February 2005.

The Court of Appeal however in its decision virtually endorsed all the findings of fact and the law applied by the learned trial judge and dismissed the appeal. The Appeals Court however reversed the specific findings of the trial judge that Exhibit ‘A’, the agreement between the appellant and her husband, the 1st defendant, was proof of the appellant’s joint ownership of House no. A 725, Dansoman, the subject matter of the proceedings.

Being naturally aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellant filed this instant appeal. She premised her attack on 3 main grounds – namely

(a) The learned judges erred in rejecting the document Exhibit A as a fair representation of what went on between the parties thereto and thus as evidence of plaintiff/Appellants entitlement to a moiety of the property in dispute.

(b) The learned trial judges erred in using the contents of the said Exhibit A which they rejected as evidence of the lack of credibility of evidence of plaintiff/Appellant that she had no