MARIAN OBENG MINTAH v. FRANCIS AMPENYIN
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- WOOD CJ(PRESIDING)
- ADINYIRA (MRS),JSC
- DOTSE JSC
- BENIN JSC
- AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an appellant seeking damages for a breach of promise to marry and recovery for contributions allegedly made towards the respondent's property. The trial High Court dismissed her claims, and the Court of Appeal awarded her damages for breach of promise but dismissed other grounds of her appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's decision that the appellant was merely a licensee in the respondent's property and found no substantial evidence proving her contributions to the property. The appellant's plea to apply principles from spousal cases was dismissed due to the nature of her concubinage relationship. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AKAMBA, JSC:-
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal that reversed the decision of the trial High Court dismissing the entire claims of the plaintiff, (herein after simply the appellant) and granting the counterclaim of the defendant (hereinafter simply the respondent) in the matter herein.
This case epitomizes a love relationship that begun on a very high note only to become sour shortly thereafter fizzling out all hopes of a blissful ever after. As recounted by the Court of Appeal it all begun in October 2000 when the parties in this appeal fell in love. There were promises apparently by the respondent to marry the appellant, for so believed the appellant, which however did not materialize. Barely two years thereafter, the relationship hit the rocks. The appellant who felt shortchanged mounted an action in the High Court seeking damages for a breach of promise to marry; damages for inconveniences and loss of time wasted on the respondent; and payment of various sums specified in the statement of claim. The respondent did not only deny the plaintiff’s claims but set up a counter claim for recovery of possession of the house on plot No. 26 West Fijai Layout Block F, Ntankoful, Sekondi; return of a pumping machine, louvre frames, standing fan, gas cylinders and photographic camera. The trial court found no merit in the appellant’s claims and so dismissed all of them and rather granted the respondent’s counterclaim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found for the appellant that the respondent had made a promise to marry her but later reneged on it. The Court also granted the appellant the sum of six thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢6000) as general damages to ameliorate her injured feelings while it dismissed the rest of the grounds of appeal.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
Still not satisfied with the Court of Appeal decision the appellant filed two main grounds for the determination of this court. These are:
(i) The Court erred in its evaluation of the evidence on record on the contribution of the Plaintiff/Appellant on the house and thereby came to a wrong decision that the Plaintiff/Appellant made no substantial contribution.
(ii) The decision that the Plaintiff/Appellant was in the property as a licensee was wrong in law and not supported by the evidence on record particularly when it was a fact that the parties were in concubinage relationship upon which the Appellant joined the Respondent in the house and did business together for the imp