RAMIA v. RAMIA

The appellant is a foreigner resident in Ghana. In April 1958 he abandoned his Christian faith to embrace the Moslem religion. This was the price he had to pay to win his wife, the respondent. The marriage was celebrated in accordance with the Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance, Cap. 129 (1951 Rev.), and registered on 25 April 1958. There had before then been three early years of cohabitation under the umbrella of a customary union.

This brief account of the marital history of the parties assumes some significance later in this judgment and it is recapitulated to dispose of a submission that the parties were not legally married. It is enough, however, to say for the present, that the parties admit these facts in their pleadings and in their testimony in the court below.

Turning again to the facts, long before this action was brought, the period of conjugal bliss had run its course. A number of incidents which are not relevant to a decision in this matter, had soured relationships to the extent that the respondent had evinced a clear dislike for sharing the matrimonial roof with the appellant. While [p.278] the honeymoon lasted, however, the appellant bought various properties in the name of the respondent. He confessed he was then deeply in love with her and wished to provide for her security. Some of these properties were sold with the respondent's consent and new ones acquired still in her name. A house numbered EI.16/2, Kojo Thompson Road, Accra, and christened "Ramia House" was one such acquisition held in the name of the respondent. Its disposition has provoked the maelstrom of this case, turning all other issues into trivial.

The appellant acquired a lease of the land on which he developed a five storey building in 1964 and spent ¢125,000 on it. It is conceded that the respondent did not contribute a pesewa. The appellant claims he retained the beneficial interest of the estate in the property and the wife only held the bare legal estate in trust for him. The respondent on the other hand maintains that the appellant divested himself of any beneficial interest in the property and made an outright gift of the property to herself and her children. She urges the application of the presumption of advancement in support of the gift. Clearly she and her children are in a class that can claim the benefit of this presumptive rule provided an intention to benefit her can be discerned from the contemporaneous circumstances and further, if no matters in rebu