PAUL ADOMAKO & ANOR. vs. MRS. OWUSU-ASIEDU [2002]DLCA6571

Date	2002-12-05
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: CA/NO.98/2001
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA6571

OWUSU JA. (PRESIDING)

ADINYIRA JA

OWUSU-ANSAH JA.

[2002]DLCA6571
																																						<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" >PAUL ADOMAKO &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS. OWUSU-ASIEDU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: CA/NO.98/2001&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: 5TH DECEMBER, 2002<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">CORAM: &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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div><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="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;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OWUSU-ANSAH, JA:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an appeal from the judgment of the
Circuit Court, Accra, dated the 20th March, 2002, in respect of House No. 29
Block 6, Korle-Gono, Accra. <o:p></o:p>The
issue in this appeal appears to be quite simply whether or not there was a
valid gift from the 2nd Plaintiff’s husband (i.e. 1st Plaintiff) to the husband
of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 30th August 1999, the Plaintiffs in
this case issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendant herein, claiming:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a) A Declaration of title to House No. 29
Block 6 Korle-Gono, Accra,<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) Recovery of Possession, and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) General damages. <o:p></o:p>The
facts of the case are that the 1st Plaintiff Paul Adomako( now deceased)
jointly acquired the house in dispute with his wife the 2nd Plaintiff over a
decade ago.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the course of time the 1st Plaintiff was
alleged to have “given “his 50% share of the house to the Defendant’s late
husband.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However, notwithstanding this alleged ‘gift’
the Defendant’s late husband, apparently at the request of the Plaintiff, duly
registered the said property at the Lands Title Registry in the joint names of
the Plaintiffs herein. <o:p></o:p>On
the death of the Defendant’s husband, all efforts to eject the
Defendant/Appellant were resisted by her with the stout defence that since 50%
of the property was given to her late husband as a gift she was entitled to
stay there lawfully. It is not clear how the house was to be shared out. <o:p></o:p>On
the 20th March the learned Circuit Judge gave judgment in favour of the
Plaintiff for all the reliefs sought or endorsed in the Writ of Summons; and
awarded ¢10 million general damages against the Defendant, together with costs
of ¢5 million, “taking into account that the Plaintiff had to travel all the
way from Canada to prosecute this case”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is against this judgment that the Defendant/Appellant
has appealed to this Court on the major ground that “ the judgment was
against the weight of the evidence”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However, in his written submission Counsel for
the Defendant/Appellant sought to argue the first of a number of additional
grounds of Appeal filed subsequently namely, that:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“ The learned Circuit Judge erred in law when
he held that the Defendant relied heavily on customary gift when in fact the
Defendant pleaded and relied on a Deed of gift inter vivos”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiffs at the very inception of this
suit were divorced and the 1st Plaintiff died during the pendency of the
suit-after giving a Power of Attorney to the 2nd Plaintiff to prosecute the
claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In reviewing the evidence, the learned Judge
observed that the Defendant/Appellant was relying on a customary gift made to
her late husband by the 1st Plaintiff to the Defendant’s late husband. <o:p></o:p>It
was submitted on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant that the Defendant never
relied on customary gift as stated in the judgment or at all. <o:p></o:p>Nor
was the issue of customary gift ever raised in the pleadings, or referred to as
part of the Defendant/Appellant’s case.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Indeed, the issues agreed for trial at the
hearing of the Summons for Directions stage were:—<o:p></o:p>