NANA AMA AMPONSAH v. FRANKLYN AMOAH NYAMAAH

J U D G M E N T

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C:-

Nana Ama Amponsah, (Respondent herein), was married to Franklyn Amoah Nyamaah, (Appellant herein) under Akan Customary law in 1991. They have 4 children out of the marriage, 3 girls and a boy.

On the 4th day of August 2003, the Respondent filed a petition at the High Court in Kumasi for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the Appellant had exhibited a behavior of which she cannot be expected to live with him and that the appellant has caused her much anxiety, distress and embarrassment. Per the Respondent’s amended petition she claimed inter alia

“that the House Number Plot 15 Block “B” Odeneho Kwadaso, the matrimonial home be partitioned and the petitioner given her portion”

The Appellant cross petitioned for one of the two stores at the Central Market being used by the Respondent and custody of the 4 children. I would like to indicate that these were the only reliefs that the cross petition of the Appellant sought and there was no amendment to change or add to this petition.

The High Court did not have difficulty with the pronouncement that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation pursuant to Section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367 as both parties were adamant about the continuance of the marriage. At the end of proceedings the High Court made an order inter alia:

a. That the Custody of the four children be given to the Respondent with the Appellant having reasonable access to them.

b. That the House Number Plot 15 Block “B” Odeneho Kwadaso did not belong to the couple so it could not be settled on either of the parties.

c. That the Respondent recovers possession of one of the two shops for his own business i.e. Shop Number AN 16.

The High Court Judge did not make any order for the payment of alimony to the Respondent as she claimed and asked both parties to bear the costs of their action. Surprisingly, the High Court judge made an order on a property, Hse number Plot 38 block B situated at Afiasiebon which was not a claim sought for by either the Appellant or Respondent.

The Respondent, not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal against some of the orders made by the judge. One of such grounds of appeal which is the subject matter of this action at the Supreme Court was that;

“The trial judge erred when she held that H/No. Plot 15 Block ‘B’ more particularly situated at Odeneho Kwadaso, Kumasi was not the self acquired property