YEBOAH vs. YEBOAH [1971]DLHC2341

Date	1971-07-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2341

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

E. N. MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

ANNANCY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1971]DLHC2341
																																						<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">YEBOAH<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">&nbsp;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">YEBOAH<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;[1974] 2 GLR 114<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:
20 JULY 1971.<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">

E. N.
MOORE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>The
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.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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 that the plaintiff is
occupying an official bungalow and wanted to eject the defendant out of spite.
She says that she has not refused or neglected to vacate the premises but is
occupying the said matrimonial home together with four children of the marriage.
She claims she is entitled to stay in the matrimonial home with the children so
long as she does not re-marry. She states that the plaintiff wants vacant
possession of the premises in order to rent them out to tenants and therefore
in the circumstances the plaintiff ought to make alternative arrangements for
her and the children of the marriage. The first limb of her defence therefore
is that as between the plaintiff on one side and herself and the children of
the marriage on the other, the latter are likely to suffer greater hardship
than the former, and also that the allegation that the plaintiff requires the
premises for his own use is false.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 23
July 1970, the court presided over by Abban J. entered consent judgment in the
following terms:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Per
curiam: By consent of both counsel judgment is hereby entered against the
defendant in respect of the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the writ of
summons. The defendant is therefore ordered to leave the house in dispute on or
before 15 August 1970. Costs will abide the result of the defendant’s
counterclaim. The defendant’s claim is adjourned to 15 October 1970.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
pertinent before I proceed to consider the counterclaim to remark that nowhere
on the plaintiff’s writ or in his statement of claim did he claim to be the
sole or exclusive owner of the premises. He asserted quite clearly in his
statement of claim that the premises were the matrimonial home, and that he
required them for his own personal occupation. The defendant also described the
premises in her statement of defence as the matrimonial home. The consent
judgment therefore cannot be construed as a declaration of the plaintiff’s
exclusive title to the premises as the sole owner thereof. I am fortified in
this view by the learned judge’s notes of the submissions of learned counsel.
They read:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Moore
for the plaintiff. Annancy for the defendant. Per Moore: I am asking for
judgment against the defendant ordering her to leave as the defence is no
defence in law. After this the counterclaim can then be gone into. Even in that
case we, without prejudice, have offered the defendant N¢300.00. Per Annancy: I
concede that the defence is no defence in law. But we say that the amount they
are offering for</main>