KOJO ANYANFUL (PETITIONER/ APPELLANT) vs. THERESA ANYANFUL (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT) [2011]DLCA7926

KOJO ANYANFUL (PETITIONER/ APPELLANT) vs. THERESA ANYANFUL (RESPONDENT/RESPONDEN... [2011]DLCA7926

Date	2011-11-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: HI/49/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7926

ABBAN JA (PRESIDING)

DUOSE JA

OFOE JA

MR. GEORGE KOM FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT (WITH HIM FRANCIS KOKU)

MR. FRANCIS ACHIBONGA FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2011]DLCA7926
																																						<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" >KOJO ANYANFUL<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THERESA
ANYANFUL<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/49/2011&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
17TH &nbsp;&nbsp;NOVEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
GEORGE KOM FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT (WITH HIM FRANCIS KOKU)<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.
FRANCIS ACHIBONGA FOR RESPONDENT/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">

ABBAN
JA (PRESIDING), DUOSE JA, OFOE JA<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant who was the petitioner in the trial court sought from the court the
dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent. By his petition he
was seeking the dissolution of the marriage because the respondent has been
abusive, that they had not lived together since 1999, all diligent efforts have
been made to resolve their differences to no avail and that the respondent has
behaved in such a way and manner he cannot reasonably be expected to live with
her. In respect of &nbsp;property settlement
he prayed the court to settle House Number 120 Park Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex,
England which he claims he purchased alone and one other house in Rome on him.
A two bedroom NTHC property in Accra which he built with the contribution of
the respondent he asked that it be settled on them jointly and an uncompleted
house in Dome which he claims he built alone be settled on him.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner and accused him rather of
abandoning the home most of the time. It was the case of the respondent that
they lived together in the U.K until the petitioner returned to Ghana in1991.
They agreed that she stayed behind in the U.K to study Nursing. They visited
each other regularly until the petitioner got a job with the United Nations and
moved to Rome in 1996. After her course in the UK she joined the petitioner in Rome.
On agreement of both parties he had to go back to the UK with the children for
medical reasons. This was in 1999. Kwesi their 13 years old child is medically challenged
and needed continious care and medical attention. Their other child is Yaa who
at the time of the petition was 11 years. The petitioner abandoned them in the
UK and on any of the rare visits he made to them there were quarrels with
occasional threats from the petitioner to divorce her. She also thinks the
marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and prays for dissolution of the
marriage, custody of the two children, maintenance including medical bills and
allowance for the children. In respect of the properties she claims to be a
joint contributor and therefore the London and the Lashibi property in Ghana,
which they jointly owned, be settled on her for the petitioner to keep the
Italy and Dome house in Ghana. I must mention here that the respondent
mentioned that she had commenced divorce proceedings in the UK through her
solicitors because she and the children are British citizens and domiciled in
the UK and their joint assets are in the UK, Italy and Ghana. When she
commenced this proceeding her father in Law called that she should not proceed
with the proceedings but come to Ghana for a discussion on the matter<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner’s reply to the respondent’s answer sought for different reliefs. He
asked that the London property be sold and the proceeds be split between them after
payment of the mortgage balance and all the other properties be shared
according to each person’s contribution. When the case came on for hearing the
respondent was not in court and the court proceeded to take evidence in her
absence on the 27th July 2009 and delivered its judgment on the 19th
October 2009 refusing the petition for divorce. <o:p></o:p>It
is this refusal that the appellant, who I have referred to as the petitioner
and I will continue to refer to as such in this appeal, is aggrieved with and has
appealed to this court. To him the judgment is against the weight of evidence
and is not warranted by law. There is a lot wrong with this other ground of
appeal that simply states that “the judgment is not warranted by law”. It has
been repeated and several times that Rule 8 sub rule 4 requires that where the
ground of appeal alleges error of law particulars of the error should be
clearly stated. I will make no issue out of this omission by counsel and
proceed to find out whether&nbsp; indeed there
was such error of law as alleged by the petitioner.<o:p></o:p>The
brief of the evidence put before the court why he thinks the marriage has
broken down irreconciliably were that the wife has been very abusive towards
him and on one occasion she struck him at the back of his head. After this
incident Mr. Kojo Owusu Tieku, a Diplomat came in and their differences were
resolved and they agreed to continue with the relationship. This was in 2005.
Another difference between them was resolved by a Mr. Asante in London and they
agreed to continue the marriage for the sake of the children. Their differences
continued anytime they met. On one other occasion the respondent came to his
office and abused him in front of his secretary and this to the petitioner
broke the camel’s back. To the petitioner these were sufficient acts of the
petitioner clearly indicating their marriage had broken down beyond
reconciliation. &nbsp;He ended his evidence
that the last time they had sexual relations was a year ago. It needs noting
that the petitioner gave these pieces of evidence on the 27th July
2009.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;What was the tri</main>