[1971]DLHC2341 • July 20, 1971 • High Court
YEBOAH vs. YEBOAH
The parties’ marriage was dissolved on 16 April 1969. After the divorce, the defendant wife remained in the former matrimonial home at No. 131, North Labone Estate, Accra, with the four children of the marriage. The plaintiff husband served notice to quit and later sued for ejectment, asserting that he required the premises for his own occupation. The defendant resisted and counterclaimed, initially seeking a right to remain in the home, and later amending her counterclaim to seek a declaration that she was a joint owner of the house because she had contributed to its acquisition, completion, and improvement. The judgment states: “The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case was dissolved on 16 April 1969… The plaintiff therefore took out a writ of summons on 10 December 1969 claiming an order for the ejectment of the defendant…” It further records the counterclaim that the defendant sought “a declaration that she is a joint owner with the plaintiff as wife and husband of the property house No. 131, North Labone Estate because of her contribution in the acquisition and erection of the said house.”
read moreThe marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant in this case was dissolved on 16 April 1969. During the proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage, the defendant lived at the matrimonial home and continued to do so till the decree nisi was made absolute. The home is numbered No. 131, North Labone Estate, Accra. On 30 May 1969 the plaintiff served a notice on the defendant to quit the premises on or before 31 October 1969 on the ground that he, the plaintiff, required the premises for his own occupation. The defendant did not leave the premises and the plaintiff therefore took out a writ of summons on 10 December 1969 claiming an order for the ejectment of the defendant from the said premises. The plaintiff is the General Manager of the Agricultural Development Bank and the defendant is an assistant commercial officer at the Ministry of Trade. The defendant denied in her statement of defence that the plaintiff needed the premises for his own occupation. She went on to say t...