SYLVIA GREGORY vs. NANA KWESI TANDOH IV AND BRIDGET HANSON [2010]DLSC2584

MID YEAR PROMO: Enjoy 30% discount on all subscriptions from now till 30th June, 2024. Redeem your discount now!

SYLVIA GREGORY vs. NANA KWESI TANDOH IV AND BRIDGET HANSON [2010]DLSC2584

Date	2010-05-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/8/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2584

WOOD (MRS) CJ (PRESIDING)

OWUSU (MS) JSC

DOTSE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

EBOW QUASHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

KWABENA OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

[2010]DLSC2584
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SYLVIA GREGORY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA KWESI TANDOH IV AND BRIDGET HANSON <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/8/2010&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 12TH
MAY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>EBOW
QUASHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWABENA OWUSU FOR THE
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:-9.0pt">

WOOD
(MRS) CJ (PRESIDING), OWUSU (MS) JSC, DOTSE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO
(MRS) JSC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DOTSE, JSC: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p>The
parties in this case began their relationships on a good note as friends,
presumably later as lovers and lately as bitter enemies, who are residing in
the same house, albeit in different apartments.<o:p></o:p>When a
similar set of facts emerged in the unreported Sekondi High Court case of suit
No. TS 2/2000 intituled I.B. Clement – Plaintiff vrs Andrews Annietey –
Defendant dated 4th June, 2003 I quoted the following passage from
William Shakespeare’s Book, Julius Caesar Act IV, Scene 3, to depict the circumstances
and this reads as follows:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “There
is a tide in the affairs of men. Which taken at the floods, leads on to
fortune; omitted, all the voyage of their life, is bound in shallows, and in &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; miseries. On such a full sea are we now
afloat; we must take the current when it serves or lose our ventures.”<o:p></o:p>FACTS:<o:p></o:p>Even
though the facts of this case admit of no serious controversies, in view of the
concurring findings of fact made by the trial High Court and the first
appellate court, to wit the Court of Appeal, we will set out the facts in some
detail in order to set the records straight.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant, hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff is an
African American now resident in Ghana, Ankaful, near Cape Coast in H/No. AV.
31/3 to be precise.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendants/Respondents/Respondents hereafter referred to as Defendants, are
husband and wife with the 1st Defendant being a Traditional Ruler in
Elmina and both also reside in the same house as the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff visited Ghana in or about 1988, met the 1st defendant and
they subsequently became friends with the latter introducing the Plaintiff to
his wife the 2nd defendant. This friendship grew in leaps and bounds
with the plaintiff accepting an invitation to lodge and reside with the defendants
anytime she visited Ghana thereafter.<o:p></o:p>It must
be noted that, the Defendants, were by then residing in rented premises and the
Plaintiff had made it known to the defendants that she had planned to relocate
to Ghana and make it her home.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff
thereafter resided with the Defendants anytime she visited Ghana and with the
passage of time the Plaintiff and 1st defendant fell in love.
According to the facts on record, the 1st defendant then proposed to
marry the plaintiff at the Cape Coast Municipal Assembly.<o:p></o:p>Even
though this marriage ceremony never took place, the relationship between the
parties grew stronger with the 2nd defendant not showing any signs
of rivalry and jealousy as women are by nature bound to show.<o:p></o:p>According
to the plaintiff, she was convinced by the defendants to provide funds for the
construction of a house on a vacant plot of land belonging to the defendants.
The plaintiff obliged and appears to have contributed substantially to the
construction of the house on this land.<o:p></o:p>When the
house was barely completed, the plaintiff moved into occupation later followed
by defendants with the plaintiff virtually occupying the first floor of the
house and the defendants the ground floor.<o:p></o:p>Even
though the defendants dispute the substantial contributions of the plaintiff
</main>