RICHMOND BOAMAH-BARIMA v. ALBERT NANOR & OTHERS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ASARE-KORANG,J.A
- OFOE,J.A.
- GYAN,J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case centers on the ownership of a property transferred to the 2nd defendant's name during her marriage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims the transfer was for loan purposes, while the 2nd defendant claims ownership through purchase and construction funds. After the trial court failed to declare title, both parties appealed. The appellate court found the property held in trust for the plaintiff, asserting his beneficial ownership. The initial registration in the 2nd defendant's name was ordered canceled, and the tenancy agreement was declared null and void, although the tenant could remain until lease term expiration.
OFOE,J.A.:
We will continue to describe the parties as plaintiff and defendants as they were in the trial court. The respondent would be referred to as the plaintiff and the appellants as defendants. The case relates more to the 2nd defendant than the first defendant.
The facts of this case can be summarized as follows: The plaintiff and 2nd defendant, Janet Opoku, were a wife and husband from 1987 to 2007 when they divorced. There are two children of the
marriage. The plaintiff worked with the Cocoa Marketing Company from 1981 to 2003. It is not too clear from the records what work the wife was doing at this time but her case was that she lived in Germany from 1993 to 1998. Sometime early in 2003 the couple found themselves in the United States of America after winning a U.S Visa Raffle. Even though the 2nd defendant, Janet Opoku, claimed she won the raffle the evidence is clear that the raffle was won by the husband i.e. the plaintiff. There is this property documented by an indenture, exhibit A, which was transferred by one Dr. K.K. Sarpong to the 2nd defendant. Sarpong’s case is that even though he transferred the property to the name of Janet Opoku it was not supposed to be for her benefit but that of the plaintiff. Both plaintiff and defendant are claiming ownership of the property. Between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant who owns this property? This appears to be the main issue for determination by the trial court and indeed this appellate court. The records disclose that the property is registered at the title registry in the 2nd defendant’s name. How this registration was done is being contested by the plaintiff as fraudulent. 2nd defendant claims she started putting up the property in 1993 with remittances she sent to the husband when she was working in Germany. She completed the building in 1998. In 2003 she returned to Ghana but had to go to the U.S with the plaintiff and their children when she won a U.S. Lottery.
As already stated, the transfer by way of assignment of the property in the name of the 2nd defendant was by an indenture exhibit A from Sarpong to Janet Opoku, the 2nd defendant. This was on the 30th December 1996. The purchase price of the assignment is mentioned in the document as 5million cedis and the property assigned is described in the indenture, exhibit A, as land and building thereon. How the 2nd defendant started building in 1993, as she claimed, when the property was transferred to her in 1996 would need some expl