THEOPHILUS ATO HINSON v. FLORENCE ARABA HINSON
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ASARE KORANG, J.A
- OFOE, J.A
- ACQUAYE, J.A
Areas of Law
- Family Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the trial court, Mr. Hinson sought dissolution of his marriages to Araba, custody of their child, and recovery of properties. The trial court granted most properties to Mr. Hinson but ordered certain payments and property conveyance to Araba. Dissatisfied, Araba appealed on four grounds, challenging the property division, lump sum award, and custody details. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and adjusted the trial court’s orders based on established legal principles. It endorsed some trial court decisions but reallocated some properties and provided detailed orders regarding custody and maintenance.
OFOE : J.A:
In the trial court the petitioner, Mr. Hinson sought the following reliefs:
1. An order for the dissolution of the customary marriage and the ordinance marriage contracted between the parties herein on 19th of February 1994 and 28th May 1994 respectively at Koforidua.
2. Recovery of possession.
3. Custody of Caroline Baaba Hinson.
The respondent, Araba, also cross petitioned for:
1. An order that the respondent has fifty percent interest in the matrimonial home and all properties that the parties acquired during the subsistence of the marriage.
2. An order of custody of the child, Caroline Baaba Ninson
3. An order of maintenance
4. Financial Provision and or lump sum payment.
At the end of trial the trial judge concluded the case stating:
“In summary therefore I make the following orders:
a. The marriage between the parties celebrated at the Methodist Church Koforidua on the 28th of May 1994 is dissolved.
b. Custody of Caroline Baaba Hinson aged seven is given to the respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is ordered to take care of her feeding, education and medical expenses while the respondent takes care of her clothing. For the avoidance of doubt the child’s monthly maintenance (excluding educational and medical expenses) shall be GH¢300.
c. The petitioner is ordered to convey the plots at Elmina and Koforidua to the respondent.
d. The petitioner shall recover possession of the Matrimonial Home House No. 28 Taifa from the respondent.
e. All other properties namely the plot of land at Kasoa, the 2 plots at Pokuase, the uncompleted building (joint venture) project at Cape Coast and the Internet café at Cape Coast are decreed to be exclusively owned by the petitioner.
The petitioner is to make a lump sum payment of GH¢5000.00 to the respondent
The respondent is dissatisfied with these orders of the trial judge and has appealed on four grounds to wit:
1. That the trial judge erred in holding that the respondent is entitled to two undeveloped plots of land only situate at Elmina and Koforidua respectively out of the numerous properties of the couple
2. That the learned trial judge erred in granting respondent who has the custody of the child of the marriage a lump sum of only GH¢5000.00
3. That the learned trial judge erred in granting the matrimonial home to the petitioner
4. That the learned trial judge erred in leaving the reasonable access to the petitioner open”
An appeal, as is