PAULINA WILLIAMS (MRS.) (PETITIONER/APPELLANT) vs. JOE WILLIAMS (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) [2010]DLCA7860

PAULINA WILLIAMS (MRS.) (PETITIONER/APPELLANT) vs. JOE WILLIAMS (RESPONDENT/RESP... [2010]DLCA7860

Date	2010-02-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: HI/20/09
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA7860

AKAMBA J.A (PRESIDING)

APAU J.A

OFOE J.A

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

MR. ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA7860
																																						<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" >PAULINA WILLIAMS (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">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><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 18TH
FEBRUARY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EFUA GHARTEL FOR (GHARTEY&amp;GHARTEY) FOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR. ODARTEY LAMPTEY FOR THE
RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

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

AKAMBA J.A (PRESIDING),
APAU J.A, OFOE 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>OFOE J.A:
Ninash, a business enterprise registered by the Petitioner, started as an
Enterprise in 1992 and eventually registered as a Limited Liability Company in
1994.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The establishment &nbsp;of Ninash therefore predated the marriage of
the parties.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;
According to the petitioner it was when the respondent was in Japan that
their engagement took place.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Around
1995, it appears there was in existence another company, Shimco, established by
the petitioner which was dealing in the import of Mosquito Coil.&nbsp; 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>The
petitioner started as a hair dresser and selling hair piece in New Town in the
name of Ninash Enterprise.&nbsp; The business
expanded and relocated at Osu Ako Adjei and then to Tema, a full grown factory.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the marriage could not be
salvaged and the petitioner sought for divorce and was granted by the trial High
Court.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It is
this grant of the cross petition which is the subject matter of the appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
sole ground of appeal states as follows:<o:p></o:p>“(1)&nbsp; that the learned judge erred when he settled
house no. C92/22&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(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>The
appellant will prefer another property of a lesser value, the Sakaman property
to be settled on the respondent and not the Abofu property.&nbsp; 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
what grounds is the appellant seeking to set aside the order of the trial
court?&nbsp; Significant in her submissions
are the following concerns raised by appellant’s counsel that:<o:p></o:p>