MILLICENT ASARE BOAFO vs. PETER ABABIO [2012]DLCA6517

Date	2012-05-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/71/2012
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA6517

OFOE J.A.

DENNIS ADJEI J.A.

KANYOKE J.A

MR. JONATHAN SARBLAH FOR RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

MR. SOMUAH-ASAMOAH FOR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

[2012]DLCA6517
																																						<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" >MILLICENT
ASARE BOAFO<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PETER ABABIO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<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. SOMUAH-ASAMOAH FOR
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">OFOE J.A., DENNIS ADJEI
J.A., KANYOKE 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,
J.A. <o:p></o:p>The
claims made by the petitioner against the respondent in the trial court were as
follows: <o:p></o:p>“(a) That the marriage between her and
the respondent be dissolved. <o:p></o:p>(b) The matrimonial home which stands
in the name of the Respondent be declared as jointly owned by the parties in
equal share. <o:p></o:p>(c) That the unnumbered house at
Railway Quarters, Achimota which was in the name of the Respondent but built
from joint contribution of the parties be declared as jointly owned by the
parties in equal share. <o:p></o:p>(d) That in the alternative in the
event that the Respondent has sold the unnumbered house at Railway Quarters
Achimota the Petitioner be given a half share of proceeds therefrom. <o:p></o:p>(e) That the Respondent is ordered to
pay a lump sum as alimony to the petitioner’s. <o:p></o:p>(f) The Respondent is ordered to pay
the petitioner’s cost for the suit. <o:p></o:p>(g) Any other order(s) that this
Honourable Court may deem fit.” <o:p></o:p>Unfortunately
the respondent died before the commencement of trial. The substituted
respondent in the person of the head of family also died to be substituted by
the nephew, Kwabena A. Mensah. After trial judgment was given the respondent,
relevant for our purpose, in the following terms: <o:p></o:p>“In the interest of justice and equity
both properties at Kokomlemle and the Achimota Railway houses should have been
distributed equally, as I have already found that both properties were acquired
during the subsistence of the marriage. However since the deceased Respondent
had already sold the Railway Quarters property without the knowledge of the
Petitioner, it is only fair that the Kokomlemle house be settled on the
Petitioner for equality is equity……………………Looking at the evidence as a whole and
in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. I will order that the
Matrimonial Home at Kokomlemle No. C 144/4 be settled on the Petitioner. I make
no Order as to alimony or financial provision.” <o:p></o:p>The
respondent is aggrieved at this decision and has appealed on three grounds: <o:p></o:p>“(i) That the learned judge erred in
law when she granted a relief not claimed by the petitioner <o:p></o:p>(ii) That the decision of the trial
court that H/No. Ci44/4 Kokomlemle was jointly acquired is against the weight
of evidence. <o:p></o:p>(iii) That the decision by the trial
judge to settle H/No.C144/4 Kokomlemle on the petitioner because the respondent
had already sold the Achimota Railway Quarters is unjust, inequitable and
contrary to good conscience”. <o:p></o:p>A
brief of the case of the parties put before the trial court. The petitioner is
claiming joint ownership of the two landed propertie</main>