THERESA OWUO v. FRANCIS OWUO
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M. OWUSU, JA (PRESIDING)
- A. M. DORDZIE, JA
- S. DZAMEFE, JA
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Equity and Trusts
- Evidence Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The parties married customarily in 1989 and later registered the marriage under the Ordinance in 1999. The appellant filed for divorce in 2010 seeking property division and financial support, while the respondent cross-petitioned and denied her claims. The trial court annulled the marriage and dismissed the property claims due to its void status. The appellant's appeal challenged the findings and sought justice based on the long-term relationship and contributions. The appellate court found the respondent’s actions fraudulent and ruled in favor of compensating the appellant half the value of jointly acquired property, highlighting the principle that no one should benefit from their fraud.
AGNES M. A. DORDZIE, JA
FACTS:
The parties married customarily in 1989, after co-habiting as husband and wife for ten years, they registered the marriage under the Ordinance in 1999.
Due to differences that cropped up in the marriage the appellant herein filed a petition for divorce on 24th November 2010 praying the High Court to:
a) Dissolve the marriage
b & c) Declare the matrimonial home described as Plots N0. 68 & 69 Community 16 Lashibi a joint property of the parties; the said property be sold and the proceeds shared equally between the parties.
d) An Audi car being used by the respondent be declared the property of the petitioner and same settled on her.
e) Petitioner further prayed for a lump sum payment of Ghc100, 000.00 to her by the respondent.
The respondent did not challenge the dissolution of the marriage, he therefore cross petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage.
He however denied the petitioner has any share in the landed property and does not own the Audi car either. The respondent maintained the petitioner is not entitled to any portion of the matrimonial home and is not entitled to any lump sum payment either. The respondent further maintained that he had acquired 3 plots of land with 3,000 cement blocks on them in the petitioner’s home town, that property be settled on the petitioner. The petitioner denied any such property exists.
After the trial the High Court found that there was no valid marriage between the parties which could be dissolved, the trial judge therefore annulled the marriage. The court further dismissed the property settlements and lump sum payment the petitioner prayed for based on the ground that the marriage was void therefore she is not entitled to any property settlement.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court the petitioner brought this appeal seeking to set aside the judgment of the court below.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. The trial judge's finding that the two plots were acquired by the respondent without any contribution from the petitioner is not supported by the evidence on record.
2. The trial judge erred when he held that the petitioner did not contribute to the construction of the home on the two plots of land situate at Lashibi.
3. The learned trial judge's failure to consider exhibit 3 which was procured by the respondent and purportedly signed by Nii Abotsi Borlabi a dead man occasioned grievous miscarriage of justice.
4. The learned trial judge erred when he held that