MARY AMOAH vs. EDWARD ACQUAH [2010]DLCA6231

Date	2010-10-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/122/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6231

MARIAMA OWUSU J.A. (PRESIDING)

YAW APPAU J.A.

MARFUL-SAU J.A.

MR. THOMAS HUGHES FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

MR. ROBERT ALLOTEY FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.

[2010]DLCA6231
																																						<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" >MARY AMOAH <o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EDWARD
ACQUAH <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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="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">SUIT
NO: H1/122/2010&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;DATE: 21ST OCTOBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR. ROBERT ALLOTEY FOR THE
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MARIAMA OWUSU J.A.
(PRESIDING), YAW APPAU J.A., MARFUL-SAU J.A.<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">

</div>YAW
APPAU, J.A. <o:p></o:p>What
the appellant in this appeal is praying for basically is for the reversal of
certain orders made by the trial High Court (i.e. the court below) in what
appears to be multiple judgments delivered by the Court below on 9/12/2008 and
31/07/2009 respectively and the remittance of the matter to the court below for
the right procedure to be employed. The respondent, who was the petitioner in
the court below and on whose behalf those orders were made, challenged the
competence of the appeal on the ground that the judgment of the court below was
a 'consent judgment' which could not be appealed against. This Court is
therefore called upon to determine what a consent judgment is and whether the
two separate judgments delivered by the court below on 19th December 2008 and
31st July 2009 constituted consent judgments. <o:p></o:p>The
facts in this case are very simple and somehow bizarre. They do not depict
episodes of a trial before a Court of record governed by rules of pleading.
What happened, from the record was that, the respondent in this appeal who was
the wife of the appellant petitioned the court below, inter alia, for the
dissolution of her marriage with the appellant. She was therefore the
petitioner while the appellant was the respondent. [For the purposes of this appeal,
however, the respondent in the court below would be referred to as the
appellant and the petitioner, respondent]. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant in his answer to the petition did not challenge the prayer for the
dissolution of the marriage, which was the first relief, but challenged the
other ancillary reliefs respondent asked for, viz; reliefs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as
endorsed on the Petition dated 24/10/07. These other ancillary reliefs had to
do with property settlement. They were basically concerned with alleged properties
acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and a declaration that the
respondent was entitled to a half-share of all those properties plus
compensation. <o:p></o:p>Unfortunately,
however, the procedure the trial court adopted in determining the ancillary
reliefs was uncalled for as the court did not comply with the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1971 [Act 367], particularly section 19 and Order 65 of CI 47. <o:p></o:p>In
the course of the trial, which commenced on 27th February 2008, counsel for the
appellant suggested settlement but this could not materialize so the trial
continued on 13/6/08 with further cross-examination of the respondent who was
the petitioner by counsel for the appellant. The cross-examination of the
respondent did not end so the court below adjourned the matter to 17/7/08 with
an order directed at the petitioner who is the respondent in this appeal, to
file a Statement of Account of the Guest House (which was one of the properties
in contention) from the year 2007 to June 2008 when it was under her care. The
record is silent on what happened on 17/7/08. However, as indicated in the
record, the next court sitting date was 19/12/2008. On this date; i.e.
19/12/08, something strange or unwarranted happened in the court below and it
was what happened that the respondent in this appeal is describing as a
‘consent judgment’. It is worthy of note to reproduce verbatim what actually
took place in the court below than to rephrase it. I quote the day’s
proceedings below: <o:p></o:p>"Petitioner present <o:p></o:p>Respondent present <o:p></o:p>Counsel for Petitioner — Robert
Allotey present. <o:p></o:p>Counsel for Respondent — absent. <o:p></o:p>By
Counsel for Petitioner — At the last sitting the respondents informed the court
that they had decided to end the</main>