[2009]DLSC5494 • February 11, 2009 • Supreme Court •
NANA AMA AMPONSAH vs. FRANKLYN AMOAH NYAMAAH
The parties, married under Akan Customary Law in 1991, had four children. The Respondent petitioned for dissolution of marriage citing intolerable behavior by the Appellant. The Respondent sought partition of the matrimonial home (House Number Plot 15 Block “B” Odeneho Kwadaso) and alimony. The Appellant cross-petitioned for custody of the children and one of two shops used by the Respondent. The High Court dissolved the marriage, awarded custody to the Respondent, denied ownership of the Odeneho Kwadaso house to either party, and ordered possession of one shop to the Respondent. The High Court also made an order on a property at Afiasiebon not claimed by either party. Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal, ordered partition of the Odeneho Kwadaso house, awarded custody and alimony, and declared the Afiasiebon house belonged to the Respondent's mother. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeal's orders on the houses and alimony.
read moreBAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C:- Nana Ama Amponsah, (Respondent herein), was married to Franklyn Amoah Nyamaah, (Appellant herein) under Akan Customary law in 1991. They have 4 children out of the marriage, 3 girls and a boy. On the 4th day of August 2003, the Respondent filed a petition at the High Court in Kumasi for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the Appellant had exhibited a behavior of which she cannot be expected to live with him and that the appellant has caused her much anxiety, distress and embarrassment. Per the Respondent’s amended petition she claimed inter alia “that the House Number Plot 15 Block “B” Odeneho Kwadaso, the matrimonial home be partitioned and the petitioner given her portion” The Appellant cross petitioned for one of the two stores at the Central Market being used by the Respondent and custody of the 4 children. I would like to indicate that these were the only reliefs that the cross petition of the Appellant sought and there was no...