QUARTEY vs. MARTEY & ANOR. [1959]DLHC2039

Date	1959-11-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2039

OLLENNU J.

ACHEAMPONG FOR PLAINTIFF (THE WIDOW);

PUPLAMPU FOR DEFENDANTS

[1959]DLHC2039
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">QUARTEY <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">MARTEY &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;[1959] GLR 377<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">

DATE:
17TH NOVEMBER, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

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

ACHEAMPONG
FOR PLAINTIFF (THE WIDOW);<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 0in 0in">

OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship referred to the pleadings, and continued:—)<o:p></o:p>The
evidence led by the plaintiff as to her marriage with the late H.A. Martey was
not cross-examined upon, and there is evidence led by the defendants which
shows that the late H. A. Martey lived with the plaintiff for over 25 years as
man and wife, and that the family of the deceased acknowledge the plaintiff as
a wife of the deceased, married under the provisions of customary law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There are
various forms of valid marriage under customary law. The indispensable elements
in all of them are the request of the man to live with the woman as man and
wife, and consent thereto by the family of the woman (Asumah v. Khair (p.353 of
this volume), where the various forms of customary marriage in Ghana are
discussed). On the evidence before me I hold that the plaintiff was the lawful
wife of the deceased, married according to customary law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I turn
now to the question of assistance which the plaintiff alleged she gave to her late
husband who, she said, was out of employment and a man of straw, deserted by
his first wife at the date when she got married to him. All the assistance
which she said she gave her husband was an allowance of £5 a month, later
increased to £10 a month; and her use of his U.A.C. Credit Customer’s Passbook
to trade on his behalf. When asked how her husband who “was out of employment”
could build a house valued at £6,000 on the allowance which she said she was
giving him, she replied “It is only God Who can tell”. She admitted, of course,
that the husband was in charge of a cocoa farm at Pramkese left by his deceased
father, and that he could have built the house from the proceeds of that farm.
In that case the house would be family property, because by customary law any
property acquired with the proceeds of family property is itself family
property, and is not the self-acquired property of the member of the family so
acquiring it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again, by
customary law it is a domestic responsibility of a man’s wife and children to
assist him in the carrying out of the duties of his station in life, e.g.
farming or business. The proceeds of this joint effort of a man and his wife
and/or children, and any property which the man acquires with such proceeds,
are by customary law the individual property of the man. It is not the joint
property of the man and the wife and/or the children. The right of the wife and
the children is a right to maintenance and support from the husband and father.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Applying
that principle, in the case of Okwabi v. Adonu (2 W.A.L.R 268), the West
African Court of Appeal, confirming a judgment of the Land Court, held that it
is a common feature of family life that a son will work with and for his
father, and that therefore, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary,
no presumption will be raised that the property, obtained by the joint efforts
of father and son and held by the father, is held by the father in trust for
the son absolutely. On the same principle I must hold that, in the absence of
strong evidence to the contrary, any property a man acquires with the
assistance or joi</main>