MR. FRANCIS AYEH v. MARY AGYEMANG

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff’s action began in this court on the 28th day of March, 2014 against the defendant. The reliefs he sought were:

a) An order for recovery of possession of plaintiff’’s property to wit; H/No. 36 Addo Avenue , Zenu Tema.

b) An order to evict the defendant forthwith from the said premises.

c) General damages for trespass and/or for mense profit.

d) An order of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant, by herself, agents, servants, privies, assigns or otherwise howsoever from disposing of, using, altering, modifying or in any manner interfering with the construction of the plaintiff’s ownership of the property in dispute.

e) Such other equitable or other reliefs as this honourable court may deem fit and just.

When the defendant was served by substitution, she caused her lawyer, James Enu to enter an appearance on her behalf on 15th May, 2014 and a statement of defence containing a counterclaim was filed on 13th June, 2014.

The counterclaim sought from the court against the plaintiff were:

a. A declaration that the defendant is a wife of the plaintiff.

b. A declaration that the defendant contributed in cash and in kind for the acquisition and development of the property.

c. An order declaring the defendant and plaintiff as joint owners of H/No. 36 Addo Avenue, Zenu, Tema

d. An order restraining the plaintiff, his agents, assigns, or whomsoever from interfering with the defendant’s occupation of the property and dealing with it as a joint owner.

e. Any further orders that this honourable court may deem fit.

f. Costs.

On 26th January, 2015 the court set down the issues raised by both counsel for trial. The issues raised by the plaintiff are:

i. Whether or not the plaintiff is the beneficial owner and entitled to possession of the premises described as H/No. 36, Addo Avenue, Zenu, Tema.

ii. Whether or not the defendant had any hand in the acquisition of the plot of land on which the disputed building has been erected.

iii. Whether or not the defendant made any financial contribution towards the construction of the disputed building.

iv. Whether or not plaintiff ever contracted any marriage with the defendant at the time.

v. Whether or not the defendant had at any material time prior to this action been unemployed depending solely on the plaintiff for her livelihood and maintenance.

vi. Whether or not at the family meeting, the plaintiff refunded an amount of GH 8,720.00 being rent advanced defendant collected from te