RAMIA vs. RAMIA [1980]DLCA1620

Date	1980-04-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1620

FRANCOIS JA

EDUSEI JA

EDWARD WIREDU J.A.

M. ATADIKA (WITH HIM MAWUKO) FOR THE APPELLANT.

THOMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLCA1620
																																						<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" >RAMIA <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>RAMIA<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 275<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:
14 APRIL 1981<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">

M. ATADIKA (WITH HIM MAWUKO) FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

FRANCOIS, EDUSEI AND EDWARD WIREDU
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant is a foreigner resident in Ghana. In April 1958 he abandoned his
Christian faith to embrace the Moslem religion. This was the price he had to
pay to win his wife, the respondent. The marriage was celebrated in accordance
with the Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance, Cap. 129 (1951 Rev.), and
registered on 25 April 1958. There had before then been three early years of
cohabitation under the umbrella of a customary union.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
brief account of the marital history of the parties assumes some significance
later in this judgment and it is recapitulated to dispose of a submission that
the parties were not legally married. It is enough, however, to say for the
present, that the parties admit these facts in their pleadings and in their
testimony in the court below.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Turning
again to the facts, long before this action was brought, the period of conjugal
bliss had run its course. A number of incidents which are not relevant to a decision
in this matter, had soured relationships to the extent that the respondent had
evinced a clear dislike for sharing the matrimonial roof with the appellant.
While the honeymoon lasted, however, the appellant bought various properties in
the name of the respondent. He confessed he was then deeply in love with her
and wished to provide for her security. Some of these properties were sold with
the respondent’s consent and new ones acquired still in her name. A house
numbered EI.16/2, Kojo Thompson Road, Accra, and christened “Ramia House” was
one such acquisition held in the name of the respondent. Its disposition has
provoked the maelstrom of this case, turning all other issues into trivial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant acquired a lease of the land on which he developed a five storey
building in 1964 and spent ¢125,000 on it. It is conceded that the respondent
did not contribute a pesewa. The appellant claims he retained the beneficial
interest of the estate in the property and the wife only held the bare legal
estate in trust for him. The respondent on the other hand maintains
that the appellant divested himself of any beneficial interest in the property
and made an outright gift of the property to herself and her children. She
urges the application of the presumption of advancement in support of the gift.
Clearly she and her children are in a class that can claim the benefit of this
presumptive rule provided an intention to benefit her can be discerned from the
contemporaneous circumstances and further, if no matters in rebuttal exist. As
to matters in rebuttal, unless there is evidence contemporaneous with the
acquisition, casting doubt that the beneficial ownership in the property was
being conveyed to the respondent, an attempt to rebut the presumption can
hardly have any prospects of success. The contemporaneous nature of the
evidence required is well illustrated by cases like Shephard v. Cartwright
[1955] A.C. 431, H.L. and Kwantreng v. Amassah [1962] 1 G.L.R. 241, S.C.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
issue of establishing a gift by way of advancement the law is quite clear: If
the facts are consistent with a presumption of advancement, “the onus is on
those who dispute the gift, while if there is no presumption of advancement,
there is primarily a resulting trust in favour of the person who paid the
money, which has to be rebutted by effective evidence”: see In re Paradise
Motor Co., Ltd. [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1125 per Danckwerts L.J. at p. 1139, C.A.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Sometimes
the loose relationship between husband and wife which takes neither future
difficulties nor the mutability of human emotions into account, may present
problems to the courts in arriving at a fair decis</main>