ABDUL-AZIZ ABU MUSAH vs. VIVIAN ABU MUSAH [2015]DLCA16186

Date	2015-01-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/228/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA16186

S. E. KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING)

A. M. A DORDZIE J. A.

G. TORKORNOO J. A

EDWARD SAM CRABBE FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT

ANDREWS N. O. TETTEH FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2015]DLCA16186
																																						<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" >ABDUL-AZIZ ABU MUSAH <o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VIVIAN ABU MUSAH <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

SUIT
NO.: H1/228/2014&nbsp; &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: 29TH JANUARY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EDWARD
SAM CRABBE FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

ANDREWS N. O. TETTEH FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>S.
E. KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING), A. M. A DORDZIE J. A., G. TORKORNOO J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

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

</div>&nbsp;G.
TORKORNOO, J. A:<o:p></o:p>The couple in this appeal got married
in 1998 and came to court for dissolution of their marriage in 2011. At the
time they came to court, the Petitioner/Appellant (hereinafter referred to as
Appellant), lived in the outhouse of the matrimonial home, H/No 52 Lashibi,
Tema and the Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter refereed to as Respondent), lived
in the main house with their children. <o:p></o:p>In his judgment, the learned trial
judge found that the couple had lived as a husband and wife for 14 years. He
settled from the evidence that the land on which the matrimonial home stood was
acquired by Appellant and his first witness PW1 and the Appellant’s portion of
the land is where his property is situate. He also settled that ‘the parties moved into the house in 1998 at
the time the main building was being built and was not completed.’ He held
that ‘the outhouse and main house was
completed during the pendency of the marriage’. (page 181 of ROA and page 8 of the judgment). <o:p></o:p>After reviewing the evidence on whether
the Respondent’s contribution to family life should be such as to entitle her
to a share of the property, he held that ‘the
Respondent did sacrifice to enable the Petitioner put up the Lashibi house’.
He went on further to hold that ‘relying
on the authority of Mensah vrs. Mensah and Quartson vrs. Quartson both Supreme
Court cases,… H/no C52 Lashibi Tema is joint property of the parties.’ He
further held that the house ‘was meant to
be a family asset because the parties and children lived in it after it was
built and that it’s the matrimonial home’ (page 182 of ROA and page 9 of the judgment).<o:p></o:p>He
further ordered the Appellant to pay the sum of 25,000 GHC to the Respondent as
post divorce settlement ‘to set her up in
business’, pay 500 GHC on the first day of every month for the upkeep of
the children, and the school and medical bills of the children when they fall
due, as well as take care of their life needs.<o:p></o:p>In
this appeal the Appellant raises 5 grounds of appeal against the judgment:<o:p></o:p>a.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the trial judge erred in fact when
he held that the outhouse and main house were completed during the pendency of
the marriage.<o:p></o:p>b.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the trial judge erred in law and
in fact when he held that H/No 52 Lashibi, Tema is joint property of the
parties.<o:p></o:p>c.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the trial judge wrongly applied
the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Mensah v Mensah 2012 SCGLR 391 and Quartson v Quartson (Civil Appeal No
J4/8/2012).<o:p></o:p>d.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the trial judge erred in fact when
he held that the Respondent had lived with Petitioner as a legal wife for t</main>