JOHN WILLIAM MENSAH vs. GRACE MENSAH [1998]DLCA6745

Date	1998-06-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3/97
Citation No.	[1998]DLCA6745

MRS. BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C.

ACQUAH J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.

MR. CARSON FOR THE APPELLANT.

RESPONDENT ABSENT

[1998]DLCA6745
																																						<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" >JOHN WILLIAM MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRACE MENSAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPT.)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 3/97&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 24TH JUNE, 1998.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

MR. CARSON FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

MRS. BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C. (PRESIDING),
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C., ACQUAH J.S.C., ATUGUBA J.S.C., MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MRS.
J. BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 25th March, 1993 in
respect of a divorce petition which was filed by the husband (Appellant) for <o:p></o:p>1.
The dissolution of his marriage to wife Respondent. <o:p></o:p>2.
Custody of the children of the marriage and <o:p></o:p>3.
That the Appellant be declared the owner of House No. M9 South Effiakuma Estate
Takoradi. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondent wife cross petitioned for dissolution of the marriage, custody of
the children and a declaration that she is the owner of House No. M9 South
Effiakuma Estate Takoradi among other reliefs. <o:p></o:p>On
the 22nd December 1986 Isaac Amuah J (as he then was) who heard the case found
that the marriage had broken down beyond repair he, dissolved the marriage and
adjourned the case for the hearing of the ancillary reliefs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Essilfie-Bonzi J. as he then was tried the
ancillary relief issues and after hearing evidence gave judgment on 18th June
1990 for Respondent holding that she was the sole owner of House No. M9 South
Effiakuma Estates Takoradi and declared, <o:p></o:p>“
I therefore make a declaration of ownership of the said house in her favour.
The Petitioner’s claim is dismissed and judgment is given in favour of the
Respondent on her counter-claim in the cross-Petition.” <o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with this decision the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which court
heard the appeal and gave judgment on the 25th March 1993, allowing the appeal
in part and setting aside that part of the judgment of the court below. The
Court of Appeal having found that “this house belonged jointly to the
petitioner and the respondent”, went on to decide how the house was to be
shared and held that the extension was funded solely by the Respondent and
declared her the sole owner of the extensions.: <o:p></o:p>The
Petitioner appealed against this particular decision of the Court of Appeal on
the following grounds namely: <o:p></o:p>1.
The Court of Appeal having rightly held that the “ intention to own the house
jointly, coupled with whatever contributions the Petitioner had made towards
the acquisition of the house made the parties joint owners of the property”
erred when it held that the extensions are separable and identifiable from the
main house. <o:p></o:p>2.
That the Court of Appeal similarly erred when it held that “it would be in the
circumstances be inequitable to vest these extensions jointly in the petitioner
and respondent” because according to Appellant: <o:p></o:p>a.
there was evidence admitted by both parties that the extensions were not
completed at the time of the hearing of the case. <o:p></o:p>b.
there was evidence that the Petitioner had also expended large sums of money on
building materials for the completion of the extensions but these were ignored
by both the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>c.
since the Court of Appeal did not evaluate the contributions made by each party
in relation to the total value of the entire property it erred in separating
and vesting the extensions in the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>d.
equity is equality. <o:p></o:p>One
of the reliefs sought by the Appellant herein is in his petition was a
declaration that he be declared </main>