MENSAH vs. MENSAH [1993]DLCA762

Date	1993-03-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLCA762

AMPIAH JSC

ESSIEM JA

ADJABENG JA

CARSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

BODZA-LUMOR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLCA762
																																						<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:#00B0F0">MENSAH<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:#00B0F0">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:#00B0F0">MENSAH<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 111<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 25 MARCH
1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CARSON FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

BODZA-LUMOR FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

AMPIAH JSC, ESSIEM AND ADJABENG JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH JSC.<o:p></o:p>The petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the
petitioner) petitioned for, inter alia, a dissolution of his marriage with the
respondent-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent). He also
claimed for custody of the children of the marriage and asked that he be
declared the owner of the house No M 9 South Effiakuma Estate, Takoradi. The
respondent on the other hand cross-petitioned for a dissolution of the
marriage; custody of the children and ownership of the same house. She also
claimed for alimony, maintenance and costs in the proceedings. Later the
respondent applied to have her answer amended to enable her claim for
maintenance for the children.<o:p></o:p>On 15 December 1986 counsels having agreed that the marriage had
broken down beyond reconciliation, the court dissolved the marriage between the
parties on 22 December 1986. The court did not make any order with regard to
custody of the children since it found it unnecessary to do so because the
children of the marriage were all grown-ups. It would appear also that the
claim for maintenance was not pursued. What was left for determination between
the parties then was the issue about the ownership of the house.<o:p></o:p>The parties had each claimed the house. On the evidence, the
learned trial judge concluded that the house in dispute belonged to the
respondent. He dismissed the petitioner’s claim and awarded costs of ¢20,000 in
favour of the respondent.<o:p></o:p>Against this judgment, the petitioner has appealed on the grounds
that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “The judgment is against the
weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo2;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(2).
The learned judge erred when he held that the house, the subject
matter in dispute, was held by the petitioner in trust for the respondent.”<o:p></o:p>On 21 January 1993 the petitioner filed additional grounds
claiming that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1). “The learned trial judge erred
when he applied the doctrine of advancement to the sums expended by the
petitioner on painting and furnishing the house. <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(2).
The learned trial judge erred in ignoring the considerable sums of
money expended by the petitioner on the extensions to the house.”<o:p></o:p>At the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the respondent conceded
that the principle or doctrine of advancement did not arise in this case. I
agree that if there was any trust at all created by the parties’ relationship,
a presumption of advancement did no</main>