J U D G M E N T
The Plaintiff herein issued out her Writ of Summons against the Defendant
claiming as follows:-
a) A declaration that the Teshie property, located at 25 Police Post Street,
off Fertilizer Road, Teshie Nungua Estate is the marital property of
Mary Adjei and Peter Mills
b) A distribution of the Teshie property in accordance with the principles
of equitable distribution of assets enshrined in the constitution, 1992.
c) Cost of litigation, including legal fees.
d) Any further order as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make.
Counter-claim in his statement of Defence against the Plaintiff as follows:-
a) The equitable distribution of the said property.
b) Each Party bears his/her own cost.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE:
According to the Plaintiff, the Parties were married in 1978 under the Akan
customary law. During the marriage, the Parties resided in Accra and
London.
This customary marriage was dissolved in August 2016 and this dissolution
was confirmed by this Court on November 2017 per Exhibit ‘A’.
The Plaintiff averred that throughout the subsistence of the marriage, she was
the primary caregiver for the two children of the marriage Meryl Mills and
Madeline Mills.
Plaintiff states that at a time when the Defendant had been involved in a
motor traffic accident that rendered him incapable of using one of his arms,
he stayed in Accra and left her alone to cater for the children in London.
Plaintiff further imported items into Ghana for the sole purpose of being sold
and the proceeds used either to buy a house or construct one.
According to the Plaintiff, considering the quantity and variety of items she
exported to Ghana from London, it was sad indeed that when she finally
relocated to Ghana with their two daughters, the Defendant had not bought
the house and indeed the one they eventually moved into was the
uncompleted one that said house is even still uncompleted.
Plaintiff states that based on her substantial contributions made toward the
disputed house the Court should make an order for her equitable share of the
disputed house.
DEFENDANT’S CASE:
The Defendant also counter-claim for his equitable share of the disputed
property. Defendant also states that his contribution to the acquisition of the
disputed house far outweighs that of the Plaintiff. Defendant avers that when
the property was purchased it was his money that was used to
1. Connect water to the house from a distance of half a mile.
2. Connect E
