STEPHANIE ANONGTIBSUM vrs RAZAK AZUMAH
March 18, 2025
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
March 18, 2025
DISTRICT COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
follows: -
a. A declaration of ownership of the Container-shop used as a hairdressing salon.
b. An order for the return of her NASCO double door standing fridge Defendant illegally seized from her.
c. An order of reasonable compensation for loss of use for Plaintiff due to Defendant having illegally locked up the container for two years.
d. An order for perpetual injunction restraining Defendant from disturbing Plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the container-shop.
e. Cost.
a. An order compelling the plaintiff to pack her things out of the container.
b. Costs including legal fees.
c. Any orders deemed fit by this Honourable Court.
Section 72—Courts to Promote Reconciliation in Civil Cases
(1) Any court with civil jurisdiction and its officers shall promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate the settlement of disputes in an amicable manner between and among persons over whom the court has jurisdiction.
(2) When a civil suit or proceeding is pending, any court with jurisdiction in that suit may promote reconciliation among the parties, and encourage and facilitate the amicable settlement of the suit or proceeding.
See also Order 25 Rule 1 sub rules (3) to (8) of the District Court Rules, 2009
(C.I 59) as amended by C.I. 134.
However, the parties could not resolve the matter out of court; hence the court proceeded to determine the matter on its merit.
AI Generated Summary
In a marital property dispute over a metallic container-shop used as a hairdressing salon, the District Court, presided over by H/W Mawukoenya Nutekpor, addressed competing claims by a wife (Plaintiff) and husband (Defendant). After referring the matter to Court Connected ADR under section 72 of the Courts Act, settlement failed and the case proceeded on the merits. Plaintiff asserted she had received GH¢6,000 at her 2021 passing out ceremony in Daporetindongo, lent it to Defendant, and that GH¢3,000 financed the container; Defendant denied her ownership and claimed the container was his. Applying the Evidence Act burdens, the court held Plaintiff failed to prove the GH¢6,000 but relied on Defendant’s admission that GH¢3,000 from the ceremony was used to make the container. Because the container was not valued in 2023, the court awarded GH¢2,000 as interest/profit on the GH¢3,000. The counterclaim partly succeeded: after payment of interest, the container is Defendant’s property and Plaintiff must vacate within seven days. No costs were awarded, mindful of the parties’ marriage and children.