RIBEIRO vs. RIBEIRO (NO. 2 [1990]DLSC678

Date	1990-04-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1990]DLSC678

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OFORI-BOATENG JA

PETER ADJETEY SAG (WITH HIM COL (RTD) ASANTE) FOR THE APPELLANT-HUSBAND.

E D KOM SAG (WITH HIM W FUGAR AND GEORGE KOM) FOR THE RESPONDENT-WIFE.

[1990]DLSC678
																																						<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" >RIBEIRO <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>RIBEIRO (NO. 2)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 130<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:
10
APRIL 1990<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">

PETER ADJETEY, SAG (WITH HIM COL (RTD) ASANTE) FOR
THE APPELLANT-HUSBAND.<o:p></o:p>

E D KOM, SAG (WITH HIM W FUGAR AND GEORGE KOM) FOR
THE RESPONDENT-WIFE.<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">

ADADE, FRANCOIS, WUAKU AND AMUA-SEKYI
JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>As a
result of an uncontested divorce proceedings in the High Court the marriage
between Charles Ribeiro and Barbara Ribeiro was dissolved in January 1981. Thereafter
the wife applied to the court for financial provision. Whilst the application
was pending, the husband transferred one of his ten houses, called the Haulage
House, to his second wife. The High Court set aside the disposition, purporting
to exercise powers given by section 26 (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971
(Act 367). The court awarded the wife a lump sum payment of ¢150,000 as
financial provision, and in addition, ordered that the Haulage House be
conveyed to her as part of the financial provision under section 20 (1) of Act
367. The husband appealed against these orders. In the Court of Appeal he
abandoned the appeal against the award of the ¢150,000 but pressed the appeal
against the transfer of the house. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed
the appeal: see [1987-88] 2 GLR 460, CA. The husband then appealed to the
Supreme Court, which in a split decision of three to two also dismissed the
appeal, on 12 December 1989 (see [1989-90] 2 GLR 110, SC ante. The husband now
applies to the court to: “review the majority judgment upon grounds contained
in the annexed affidavit and statement . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be it
noted that the applicant does not say in the motion whether he is applying on
grounds of error of law or of miscarriage of justice or of discovery of fresh
facts or evidence, or whatever. He leaves the ground(s) for the application to
be inferred by the court from the “annexed affidavit and statement”, a course
which creates the impression that he has no really good and substantial grounds
for the applicant for review, but that he merely seeks to re-argue his appeal, perhaps
with greater emphasis, and, where he can, to raise new matters which might have
escaped him so far and which he wished he had raised when arguing the appeal.
Indeed, his supplementary statement in support of his application contains a
number of such fresh arguments.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
hearing of the appeal before us, as also before the Court of Appeal, the
husband raised a number of issues, namely:<o:p></o:p>1. That the High Court had no power to set aside the
disposition of the Haulage House.<o:p></o:p>2. That in an application for financial provision the High Court
has no power to order a transfer of a particular house to the wife.<o:p></o:p>3. That the High Court failed to exercise its discretion
judicially when it, as it were, arbitrarily chose the Haulage House for the
wife.<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">4. That a flat of two bedrooms
and a hall, with all conveniences, offered by the husband should have been
enough for the wife’s requirements. All the children of the marriage are
adults, leading independent lives, and do not have to be accommodated by the
wife.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>These
issues were resolved against the husband in the two courts below, and by the
majority in this court. The minority, however, were of a contrary opinion. In
what counsel described as “very strong dissenting judgments” the minority
(Francois and Wuaku JJSC) found in favour of the husband.<o:p></o:p>