UNITED SIMPSON & AYITEY CO. vs. JEFFREY AND ANOTHER (JEFFREY-CLAIMANT) [1962]DLHC1733

Date	1962-04-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1733

OLLENNU J.

BREDU-PABI FOR THE CLAIMANT.

T. K. AGADZIE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS-JUDGMENT-CREDITORS.

[1962]DLHC1733
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">UNITED SIMPSON &amp; AYITEY CO. <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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">JEFFREY AND ANOTHER (JEFFREY-CLAIMANT) <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 279<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 17TH APRIL, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

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

BREDU-PABI
FOR THE CLAIMANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 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>The claimant has raised objection to the attachment of the
chattels, subject-matter of this claim, on the grounds that they are her
property which she uses in common with the execution-debtor her husband, and
that whatever interest the husband might have in them those interests are not
such as could in law be attached in execution against him. The goods consist of
household furniture and a car.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The general presumption of law is that household furniture of the
description of that in this claim, i.e. chairs, tables, drinking glasses and
the like, used by a married couple in the matrimonial home belong to the
married couple in common, but are under the direct control of the house-wife
who naturally would require them. for the proper administration and the
efficient management of the home. The interest which either the wife or the
husband has in such a property is indivisible’ it is an incident to their
conjugal relationship, and is of the same nature and species as the interest
which a member of a family has in family property. The sale of such an interest
would lead to absurdities. For example, it would mean that if they were
attachable, then if the right title and interest of a husband in furniture,
bed, chairs, tables, etc., are sold in execution and purchased by a man, that
male purchaser would acquire a right of the husband to use the bed, etc., in
common with the wife of the execution-debtor in the matrimonial home. That
would make the law ridiculous.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Of course, the presumption can be rebutted by evidence that a
particular piece of furniture is the separate individual property of the wife
or the husband, used exclusively by him or her in the home. The onus is upon
the execution-creditor to rebut that presumption.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this suit the execution-creditors have made no attempt to
produce any rebutting evidence. Counsel submitted however that the belief which
the execution-creditors said they had that the goods seized belonged to the
execution-debtor should weigh with the court and that the court should accept
and act upon that evidence and dismiss the inter- pleader suit. This submission
cannot bear examination.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As far as the car is concerned the documents in respect of it,
exhibit A, prove conclusively that it is the separate property of the claimant.<o:p></o:p>In the circumstances the claim must succeed. The claim is allowed;
it is ordered that the goods upon which execution has levied should be released
from attachment forthwith. The claimant will have her costs fixed at 25 guineas
inclusive.<o:p></o:p>