OGBARMEY-TETTEH vs. OGBARMEY-TETTEH [1993]DLSC818

Date	1993-01-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC818

ARCHER CJ JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

AMARKAI AMARTEIFIO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1993]DLSC818
																																						<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">OGBARMEY-TETTEH<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">OGBARMEY-TETTEH<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 1 GLR 353<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<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:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date: 12 JANUARY, 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE THOMPSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">AMARKAI AMARTEIFIO FOR THE
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">ARCHER CJ, WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI,
AIKINS, EDWARD WIREDU, JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER CJ.<o:p></o:p>I have had the opportunity of reading beforehand the learned
judgments of my brothers Wuaku and Aikins JJSC and I agree with them that the
judgment of the trial judge in the High Court is fair and reasonable and that
it should not be disturbed.<o:p></o:p>I should therefore allow the appeal of the plaintiff and dismiss
the cross appeal of the defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
WUAKU JSC.<o:p></o:p>This is a cross appeal by the parties to parts of the judgment of
the Court of Appeal delivered on 18 July 1991. The plaintiff-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) and the defendant-appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the defendant) got married under the Marriage
Ordinance, Cap 127 (1951 Rev) on 22 September 1951. The marriage seemed to have
come to an end in 1970. The plaintiff claims against the defendant two main
reliefs and what I may describe as four ancillary reliefs. The first main
relief the plaintiff asked for is a declaration that he is the absolute owner
of a piece of plot of land he described as plot A and the same relief in the
second main relief which he described as plot B. On these two plots of land
were built what is described by the plaintiff as a two-storey messuage or dwelling
house and an outhouse and collectively referred to as house No A 299A/4. There
is no dispute about the description of the two plots of land and the buildings
thereon.<o:p></o:p>The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim and counterclaimed as
follows:<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 lfo12;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i).&nbsp;&nbsp; “A declaration that all that
property known as H/No A299A/4 Laterbiorkorshie, Accra comprising a two-storey
house, a one-storey outhouse and a caretaker’s hut and the site of the whole is
held by the plaintiff upon a resulting trust for the defendant as the absolute
and exclusive owner thereof. <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 lfo12;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii).
A perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff, his servants and
agents from interfering in any way whatsoever with the defendant’s exclusive
beneficial ownership and possession of the said property.”<o:p></o:p>The trial was started before Okai J before whom the plaintiff
closed his case. Because Okai J had left the service, it was agreed that the
hearing be continued before Lutterodt J (as she then was). Lutterodt J (as she
then was) carefully examined the evidence before Okai J and herself, and gave
judgment for the plaintiff and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was
allowed in respect of the plaintiff’s second main relief which is in respect of
plot B; the Court of Appeal thereby confirming the judgment of Lutterodt J (as
she then was) in respect of the plaintiff ‘s main claim one in respect of plot
A. As said earlier, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is dated 18 July 1991.
The plaintiff on 17 October 199</main>