ULINA WILLIAMS (MRS.) vs. JOE WILLIAMS [2010]DLCA6587

Date	2010-02-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: HI/20/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6587

AKAMBA J.A (Presiding)

APAU J.A

OFOE J.A

EFUA GHARTEL FOR (GHARTEY & GHARTEY) FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT

MR. ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA6587
																																						<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" >ULINA WILLIAMS (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JOE WILLIAMS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO: HI/20/09&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 18TH FEBRUARY,
2010<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">

COUNSEL:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;EFUA GHARTEL FOR (GHARTEY &amp; GHARTEY) FOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;MR. ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>AKAMBA J.A (Presiding),
APAU J.A, OFOE J.A<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" align="center" style="text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE J.A<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Ninash, a business enterprise registered by
the Petitioner, started as an Enterprise in 1992 and eventually registered as a
Limited Liability Company in 1994. The company, with the petitioner as the sole
shareholder, has been trading in Synthetic hair products. In 1996, specifically
the 9th of May, the petitioner got married to the respondent. The establishment
of Ninash therefore predated the marriage of the parties. The record of appeal
however discloses that the parties before their marriage were in concubinage
and engagement since 1993 until this date 1996 when they had their Ordinance
marriage. What was to bring this marriage into fruition was their first meeting
in February 1993 at the Trade fair where the petitioner was then exhibiting her
wares, and the respondent was driving a media company to the fair. In the
course of this relationship there was the agreement by the parties for the respondent
to go to Japan, using the petitioner’s Company name Ninash for the Visa, to
seek for greener pastures. According to the petitioner it was when the
respondent was in Japan that their engagement took place. <o:p></o:p>On
the invitation of the petitioner, the respondent returned to Ghana in 1995 to
assist in running Ninash Co. Ltd<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Around 1995, it appears there was in existence
another company, Shimco, established by the petitioner which was dealing in the
import of Mosquito Coil. As between the parties there is a dispute as to who
was in charge of this business and who caused its collapse. But in this appeal
what we have been called upon to determine hasn’t much to do with this Mosquito
Coil Company.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The petitioner started as a hair dresser and
selling hair piece in New Town in the name of Ninash Enterprise. The business
expanded and relocated at Osu Ako Adjei and then to Tema, a full grown factory.
One would have thought that with this positive development in the fortunes of
the Company the parties would have had a peaceful and joyous marriage
relationship, but that was not to be. The marriage started deteriorating and
this was somewhere in the year 2000. Unfortunately, the marriage could not be
salvaged and the petitioner sought for divorce and was granted by the trial
High Court. In addition the trial High Court granted the respondent a cross
petition settling H/No. C92/22, 36 Abofu Road, Achimota, Accra on the
respondent. It is this grant of the cross petition which is the subject matter
of the appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The sole ground of appeal states as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(1)
that the learned judge erred when he settled house no. C92/22 (parcel No. 83
Block 15) valued at ¢3,700,000,000.00 ………..on the respondent who was neither a
shareholder nor a Director of Petitioner’s Company but an employee who had used
his earnings to acquire three high range cars”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The appellant will prefer another property of
a lesser value, the Sakaman property to be settled on the respondent and not
the Abofu property. The settlement of the Abofu property on the respondent by
the trial High Court, it is the claim of the petitioner, should be set aside. <o:p></o:p>On
what grounds is the appellant seeking to set aside the order of the trial
court? Significant in her submissions are the following concerns raised by
appellant’s counsel that:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The trial Judge in settling the property on
the respondent proceeded as if the properties mentioned in the trial were
jointly acquired and the parties conducted their finances jointly. <o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The degree of contribution of the
respondent to the business was not considered by the trial judge and<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&n</main>