TACKIE v. BAROUDI

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.

The appellant and the respondent were married on 2 March 1965, and there are two issues of this marriage. On 30 June 1972, the respondent brought divorce proceedings in the High Court, Accra, seeking the dissolution of their marriage on the ground that the said marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. At the time of these proceedings, both the appellant and the respondent lived in house No. 1/s, 39 Community No. 1, Tema, as their matrimonial home. On 22 November 1975, Okai J. declared the marriage dissolved, but rejected the respondent's prayer for the custody of the children. The learned judge instead granted the custody of the children to the appellant, and his reasons for doing this are expressed in the following passage of his judgment:

[p.39]

"Suffice it to be said that the mother who is in business has been maintaining the children. It is fair to say that she continued to do that. In all the circumstances of this case, and bearing all the matters in mind [the children's] best interest will be served by leaving them where they are with the mother, I have a comfortable feeling that they will be well cared for."

The learned judge then continued, "Let me hasten to add that the court can always be resorted to when things change. One can readily understand the wisdom and good sense of this approach."

The appellant did not appeal from the Judgment of Okai J., and it would appear that both the appellant and the respondent, as well as the children, continued to live together under the same roof, the matrimonial home.

Soon after this judgment, the appellant made an application to the court for an order to eject the respondent from the matrimonial home. The ground for the application was that there was tension in the home and that this was likely to affect the emotional stability of the children. The application came before Kisseih J. who dismissed it, but who made certain pertinent observations in the course of his ruling. The learned judge said: "The respondent has shown in his exhibit 1 that the house was acquired by him in trust for his daughter. He is the trustee for the daughter and not the applicant as I am being asked to believe. Exhibit 1 is sufficiently clear and it speaks for itself." The ruling of Kisseih J. was tendered in evidence at the hearing of the present case by the respondent and was marked exhibit A. The respondent in this present appeal is obviously the same respondent referred to in Kisseih J.