ANANG vs. TAGOE [1989]DLHC533

Date	1989-11-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC533

BROBBEY J

KOMATSI FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

BORTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1989]DLHC533
																																						<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" >ANANG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TAGOE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 2 GLR 8<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:
2 NOVEMBER
1988<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">

KOMATSI 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">

BROBBEY J<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.<o:p></o:p>By her
writ the plaintiff has claimed a declaration that she is the joint owner with
the late George Okai Mensah Tagoe of a house situated on a plot at Mataheko
numbered as B 747/4. She also applied for perpetual injunction to restrain the
defendant and her agents or assigns from interfering with the quiet enjoyment
of the said house by her and her children.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
action was originally instituted against her husband Robert Okai Mensah Tagoe
but he died before the case was concluded. The current defendant, Major Tagoe,
a brother and successor of the late Tagoe, was substituted for him. Before he
died, the late Tagoe denied the plaintiff’s claims and counterclaimed for a
declaration that he was the sole owner of the house in dispute.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s case is that she was married to the late Tagoe in about 1952.
Thereafter a plot of land was acquired at Mataheko for the purpose of building
for her late husband, herself and their children a matrimonial home. She
averred further that in the course of the construction of the said house she
made financial contributions. Her contributions included providing meals for
the workers engaged in the construction, giving moneys to the workers for the
purchase of building materials like iron rods or off-loading and cartage of
timber purchased by the defendant, organising the production of blocks used in
constructing the building and on diverse occasions physically being present by
herself to supervise the said construction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The late
husband as the defendant on the other hand denied that he received any
assistance from the plaintiff. His case is that the house was the sole effort
of himself and that he made all the payments for the various items used in
constructing the house. He maintained that it was he who acquired the plot. In
support of his application he tendered the indenture on the land as well as
numerous receipts for various purchases of building materials which were all in
his name.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A
critical examination of the evidence led in the course of the trial shows that
the plaintiff made financial contributions towards the construction of the
house. There was evidence that it was part of the contract between the
defendant and the first builders of the house up to lintel level that while
work was going on food should be supplied to the workers. That it was the
plaintiff who supplied the food was supported by the first plaintiff witness,
one of the builders. In addition, the moneys she paid, materials she bought and
her physical labour expended on supervision were satisfactorily corroborated by
the evidence from the first, second, third and indeed the fourth plaintiff
witnesses. Evidence was led to the effect that defendant was a police officer
who was on transfer to various stations. Most of the time he was outside Accra
and he left the supervision of the construction to the plaintiff who was then
trading in Accra.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To
establish her financial means, the plaintiff led evidence to support the
assertion that she was a trader with passbooks from the Ghana National Trading
Corporation (GNTC) and her witnesses further buttressed her stand that she was
a trader in meat and timber. From the nature of the trading enterprise she
described, I am satisfied that she was capable of making the monetary
contribution which she claimed to have made towards the construction of the
house.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
true that the plaintiff has not been able to establish the precise extent of
the con</main>