GH - SADIA SALIFU v. ALHAJI MUNTARU SOFO

TORKORNOO (MRS), J.A.

The parties were married in June 2013 and cohabited in the Respondent’s house until January 2015 when they were divorced through mallams. According to Appellant, the parties were informed by the mallams that she was allowed under Islam to remain in the former husband’s house for three months after the divorce and be maintained by him during that period. In March 2015, the Appellant returned from town and discovered the door to the verandah leading to her room locked with a different padlock.

She could not get access to her room, her personal things and items provided for her use during marriage such as beddings, furniture, wardrobe, TV and a fridge. Her case also was that Respondent failed to maintain her over the three month post-divorce period as was her entitlement in Islam.

She therefore sued the Respondent seeking the following reliefs:

1. An order directing the Defendant to remove his padlock to enable Plaintiff to get access to her room.

2. Recovery from the Defendant all the items bought for her to furnish her room on their marriage.

3. An order directing Defendant to find an alternative accommodation of Plaintiff’s choice.

4. An order awarding adequate financial provision to the Plaintiff.

5. General damage for inconvenience cause the Plaintiff for locking her room and denying her access to same and her wearing apparels

The Respondent denied that the Appellant was entitled to her claims. He also denied that the items described in the Statement of Claim had been provided for her and said that they were bought for his own use and enjoyment long before the marriage. Neither party denied that there had been a proper dissolution of the marriage.

The judgment can be found from pages 105 to 121 of the Record of appeal. It was the judgment of the trial court that by the end of the trial, the evidence showed that the room had been opened and Appellant’s personal belongings had all been returned to her. Her first claim was therefore moot.

On her second claim, he also held that the listed movables placed in Appellant’s room were used by the couple as a marriage unit and the general presumption of the law is that such items constituted household chattel and belonged in common to the couple. Their interests in the items were therefore indivisible.

He also held the view that the divorce was justified because the Appellant had been ill and failed to inform the Respondent that she was ill, and that he had had to divorce her