MARGARET ATUAHENE vs MICHAEL APPIAH & ORS
November 7, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JANE HARRIET AKWELEY QUAYE (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Equity and Trusts
November 7, 2022
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court interpleader arose after House No. 11, Cashew Street, Adenta Housing Down Estate, Accra, was seized in execution of a judgment. Mrs. Priscila Appiah, the wife of the 1st Defendant, claimed co-ownership, asserting the house was acquired during marriage via a Home Finance Company mortgage, that she paid a 20% deposit from her inheritance, and later funded significant extensions, with the property serving as their matrimonial home since 1996. The Disputant, Margaret Atuahene, challenged the claim as collusive, alleging the house belonged solely to the 1st Defendant and pointing to a 2006 HFC mortgage. Applying the presumption of joint acquisition under Article 22(3), the Evidence Act’s burden-shifting, and principles safeguarding matrimonial homes, the Court found the presumption unrebutted. It upheld the interpleader, recognizing the claimant’s interest and restraining execution absent her consent.
A notice of claim was filed in the Registry of this Court on 12th August 2022 on behalf of Mrs. Priscila Appiah claiming ownership of House Number 11, Cashew Street, Adenta Housing Down Estate, Accra seized in execution of the Judgment of this Court.
The case of the Claimant as deposed to in an Affidavit of Interest is that she is wife of the 1st Defendant and a co-owner of the property, the subject matter of the execution under the process of the Court. Together with the 1st Defendant, they acquired the property in dispute, House Number 11, Cashew Street, Adenta Housing Down, Adenta, Accra through a mortgage loan from the Home Finance Company.
According to Claimant, the initial deposit of twenty percent of the purchase price of the property was provided by her through her share of her late father’s inheritance but because the 1st Defendant was then on a regular monthly income, they agreed that the property be acquired and registered in his name to make repayment easier through deductions from his monthly salary.
On her part, Claimant states that she worked as the Managing Director of Oriental Links Limited and earned a lot of income from the running of the business such that, she single handedly financed the extension done on the property in dispute to change it from a 2-bedroom house to a 4-bedroom house with a garage. That the property in dispute has been and remains my matrimonial home since its acquisition in 1996 by the 1st Defendant and the Claimant. That as a co-owner of the property in dispute, it could not be attached for execution under the process of Court without my consent and authority. Claimant has never given consent or authority to the 1st Defendant to attach the property in dispute in settlement of any Judgment debt.
CASE OF PLAINTIFF/DISPUTANT
Plaintiff/Disputant, Margaret Atuahene opposed the said Affidavit as all the Claimant’s claims contained therein in respect of the subject property are non-existent, fictive, and a last minute collusive antic between 1st Defendant and the Claimant in order to prevent her from reaping the benefits of her Judgment. Claimant’s assertion that she and 1st Defendant acquired the property by a mortgage loan is false as she could not provide any evidence and particulars of the said mortgage loan as well as her alleged twenty percent deposit payment of the purchase price of the property. That the property is the self-acquired property of 1st Defendant only, which explains why ownership of same is in t