RICHMOND BOAMAH-BARIMA vs. ALBERT NANOR, JANET OPOKU AND PASTOR DAN CATO [2013]DLCA8074

Date	2013-06-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/205/2011
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8074

ASARE-KORANG J.A

OFOE J.A.

GYAN J.A

MR. WARD BREW FOR 2ND & 3RD APPELLANTS

MR. ADDAE ABOAGYE FOR RESPONDENT

[2013]DLCA8074
																																						<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" >RICHMOND BOAMAH-BARIMA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALBERT NANOR, JANET OPOKU AND PASTOR DAN CATO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<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. H1/205/2011&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;DATE: 6TH JUNE, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
WARD BREW FOR 2ND &amp; 3RD APPELLANTS<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.
ADDAE ABOAGYE FOR 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">

ASARE-KORANG
J.A, OFOE J.A., GYAN 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">

<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>We
will continue to describe the parties as plaintiff and defendants as they were
in the trial court. The respondent would be referred to as the plaintiff and
the appellants as defendants. The case relates more to the 2nd
defendant than the first defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case can be summarized as follows: The plaintiff and 2nd
defendant, Janet Opoku, were a wife and husband from 1987 to 2007 when they
divorced. There are two children of the <o:p></o:p>marriage.
The plaintiff worked with the Cocoa Marketing Company from 1981 to 2003. It is
not too clear from the records what work the wife was doing at this time but her
case was that she lived in Germany from 1993 to 1998. Sometime early in 2003
the couple found themselves in the United States of America after winning a U.S
Visa Raffle. Even though the 2nd defendant, Janet Opoku, claimed she
won the raffle the evidence is clear that the raffle was won by the husband i.e.
the plaintiff. There is this property documented by an indenture, exhibit A,
which was transferred by one Dr. K.K. Sarpong to the 2nd defendant. Sarpong’s case is that even though he
transferred the property to the name of Janet Opoku it was not supposed to be
for her benefit but that of the plaintiff. Both plaintiff and defendant are
claiming ownership of the property. Between the plaintiff and the 2nd
defendant who owns this property? This appears to be the main issue for
determination by the trial court and indeed this appellate court. The records
disclose that the property is registered at the title registry in the 2nd
defendant’s name. How this registration was done is being contested by the
plaintiff as fraudulent. &nbsp;2nd defendant claims she started putting
up the property in 1993 with remittances she sent to the husband when she was
working &nbsp;in Germany. She completed the
building in 1998. In 2003 she returned to Ghana but had to go to the U.S with
the plaintiff and their children when she won a U.S. Lottery.<o:p></o:p>As
already stated, the transfer by way of assignment of the property in the name
of the 2nd defendant was by an indenture exhibit A from Sarpong&nbsp; to Janet Opoku, the 2nd defendant.
This was &nbsp;on the 30th December
1996. The purchase price of the assignment is mentioned in the document as
5million cedis and the property assigned is described in the indenture, exhibit
A, as land and building thereon. How the 2nd defendant started
building in 1993, as she claimed, when the property was transferred to her in
1996 would need some explanation. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff explained how come the property was transferred into the 2nd
defendant’s name. It was his evidence that there was agreement between him and
Mr. Sarpong, the assignor of the property, that this transfer be made in the
wife’s (2nd defendant) name for the plaintiff to get a housing loan
from his employer, the Cocoa Board. By this Housing Loan Scheme he needed to
get a landlord who was interested in selling his property. The plaintiff would
then introduce the landlord and his property to the employers and he will be
given the loan to purchase the property. It was to get this loan that he agreed
with his childhood friend, Mr. Sarpong, who was then a Deputy Chief of the
COCOBOD to &nbsp;transfer the property into
the 2nd defendant’s name for the said property to be used for
applying for the loan. The assignment was accordingly made in the 2nd
defendant’s name and the property was presented for the loan using the 2nd
defendant as the landlord. The plaintiff, just like Mr. Sarpong, told the court
that the transfer was not meant to benefit the 2nd defendant. <o:p></o:p>The
record of appeal discloses that subsequently a Sales Agreement, Exhibit C, dated
July 1998, was made by the plaintiff without the knowledge of the 2nd
defendant purporting to transfer the said property back from 2nd
defendant to the plaintiff. The intended effect of this sale agreement was for
the plaintiff to get his property back from the wife, the 2nd
defendant. It would be noted from the record of appeal that these
documentations were made at the time the couple were married but at a time the
2nd defendant was not in Ghana but in Germany. This judgment will
have to look at the legal implications of the transfer of the property by Mr.
Sarpong into the 2nd defendant’s name a</main>