DOREEN AHUN vs. GEORGE OPOKU APPIAH [2013]DLCA8394

Date	2013-03-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/9/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA8394

MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ADJEI J.A

.ACKAH-YENSU J.A.

D.K. SOKPOI ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

EMMANUEL ARTHUR ESQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

[2013]DLCA8394
																																						<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" >DOREEN AHUN<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GEORGE OPOKU APPIAH<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">SUIT NO: H1/9/2012&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: 21ST MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>D.K. SOKPOI ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">EMMANUEL ARTHUR ESQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p></div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">MARFUL-SAU J.A. (PRESIDING), ADJEI J.A, .ACKAH-YENSU J.A.<o:p></o:p></div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><div style="font-size: medium; border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></div>DENNIS ADJEI, J.A<o:p></o:p>The Respondent/Appellant hereafter called the respondent filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court Sekondi. The judgment was delivered on 17th December, 2010. The brief facts of the case which culminated in this appeal were that, the parties herein got married under Akan customary law. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff had put up an uncompleted house at Anaji, Takoradi. The petitioner was tasked by the respondent to see to the completion of the house. The house was later on converted to a guest house. According to the petitioner, she jointly acquired other properties with the respondent. The respondent however disputed&nbsp;&nbsp; the petitioner’s claim and said that all the properties which were acquired during the subsistence of their marriage were acquired by him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Some few years after the marriage, the parties saw that they were incompatible.&nbsp; The petitioner applied to the court for leave to file divorce proceedings which was granted by the court. Pursuant to the leave granted by the court, the petitioner filed her petition seeking from the court, inter alia, the dissolution of their customary marriage, a declaration that she was a joint owner of all the three properties in Takoradi, recovery of possession for her half share of the properties, compensatory damages and an order for perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p>On 17th December, 2010, the High Court, Sekondi dissolved the marriage and further decreed that the petitioner was a joint owner of all the three properties. The respondent aggrieved by the decision of the trial High court appealed against the judgment to this court. There is only one ground of appeal that is the omnibus ground, that is, the judgment is against the weight of evidence on record. By this ground of appeal, the respondent is inviting this court to rehear the matter. In the case of Tuakwa vs. Bosom [2001-2002] SCGLR 61; the Supreme Court held that appeal is by way of rehearing particularly where the appellant alleges in his notice of appeal that the judgment is against the weight of evidence on record. This legal position affirms what is stated in Rule 8 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, C.I. 19. It provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“(1) Any appeal to the Court shall be by way of re-hearing and shall be brought by a notice referred to in these rules as ‘the notice of appeal”.<o:p></o:p>Although it is not the duty of the appellate court to evaluate the veracity or otherwise of any witness, it is incumbent upon the court to analyze the entire record of appeal, take into account the testimonies and all documentary evidence adduced at the trial before arriving at its decision, so as to satisfy itself that, on a preponderance of the probabilities, the conclusions of the trial Judge are reasonably or amply supported by the evidence. The same legal position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Djin vs. &nbsp;Musah Baako [2007-2008] SCGLR 686.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><</main>