ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID vs. NANA YAA KONADU [2016]DLCA4521

Date	2016-06-08
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/04/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4521

V. D. OFOE J.A. (PRESIDING)

K. A. ACQUAYE J.A.

M. WELBOURNE (MRS) J.A.

MR. EDWARD ANOKYE FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

MR. CHRISTOPH KOKA FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPO NDENT

[2016]DLCA4521
																																						<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" >ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA YAA KONADU&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/04/2016&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; DATED: 8TH JUNE, 2016<o:p></o:p>

MR.
CHRISTOPH KOKA FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPO NDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>V.
D. OFOE J.A. (PRESIDING), K. A. ACQUAYE J.A., M. WELBOURNE (MRS) J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
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>K. A. ACQUAYE, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
facts leading to this appeal are that the parties, both Ghanaians, got married
under the Ordinance in 1977 and had two issues aged 29 years and 16 years as at
2009 when the petition was filed.&nbsp; The
petitioner stated that they have not jointly acquired any properties except
that they both have fifty percent shares each in Nayak Company Limited.&nbsp; According to the petitioner for the past ten
years they have not enjoyed any meaningful or peaceful marriage and that due to
certain deadly threats from the respondent she was compelled to desert the
matrimonial home in 2009.&nbsp; The
petitioner’s case was that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation
and petitioned for a dissolution of the said marriage and an order that the
petitioner should continue to maintain the issues of the marriage.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent admitted that the marriage between the parties had broken down
beyond reconciliation but blamed the petitioner for the situation.&nbsp; The respondent vehemently denied that the
parties have not jointly acquired any property and listed fourteen (14) landed
properties jointly acquired by them as well as two companies, Nayak Group
Limited and Nayak Fisheries Limited jointly owned by them in equal shares.&nbsp; The respondent thus cross-petitioned for the
dissolution of the marriage, custody of Fatayi Rashid (aged 16 years) and an
order for distribution of all properties jointly acquired by the parties as
listed in the answer to the petition.<o:p></o:p>In
her reply to the respondent’s answer the petitioner stated that six out of the
fourteen landed properties listed by the respondent are vested exclusively in
the petitioner as confirmed in a document prepared and signed by the
respondent.&nbsp; The other seven landed
properties all belong to Nayak Company Limited jointly owned by the parties in
50 % equal shares.&nbsp; The petitioner also
stated that she is the sole owner of Nayak Fisheries Limited which operates in
a building owned by Nayak Company Limited.&nbsp;
The petitioner further answered that Nayak Company Limited also owned
four separate plots of land in the Accra and Central Regions.<o:p></o:p>At
the close of pleadings it being apparent that the marriage between the parties
had broken down beyond reconciliation, the trial judge declared the marriage
dissolved on 23rd September 2009 and proceeded to take evidence on the
ancillary reliefs relating to the distribution of the properties acquired
during the marriage<o:p></o:p>In
her evidence the petitioner recounted how they together imported and sold
fabrics under Rashida Limited and Nayak Limited and used the resources and
profits therefrom in acquiring various properties, some in the names of the
company Nayak Limited and some in their individual names.&nbsp; The petitioner also testified on how she
undertook other businesses such as fisheries importation under Nayak Fisheries
Limited which she exclusively set up, import of buttons and linoleum and tie
and die on her own and acquired properties mostly in the name of the company
Nayak Limited.&nbsp; The petitioner testified
that in the course of the marriage the respondent signed a document which
recited that the respondent had “ceeded all ownership interest of building
number 233 Airport West, another building at Airport West, one three storey
building at Adabraka Official Town, the building in Kumasi, the buildings in
Sekondi, all the land at Elmina and New Ashongman in Accra to Nana Yaa Konadu.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Nayak Plaza, One building at
Achimota.&nbsp; The cold store at Tema and the
one storey building at New Town will be jointly owned.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All the business has been ceeded to
Nana Yaa Konadu with the exception of the Fabric business which will be jointly
owned.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CARS- All the cars with the exception
of the Nissan Patrol and two NISSIAN Pick-up has also been ceeded to Nana Yaa
Konadu<o:p></o:p>KEEP
THEM IN PEACE”<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner therefore claimed the properties listed in the document which she
tendered as exhibit E as her exclusive properties and also claimed a share of
the other properties acquired in the name of Nayak Limited.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent on his part testified that they jointly applied their income earned
in the United States of America where they settled immediately after they
married to setting up Rashida Limited and Nayak Limited in Ghana under which
companies they both traded principally in fabrics and later on in
fisheries.&nbsp; The respondent admitted that
while later the petitioner engaged in buttons and tie and dye they were small
businesses set up, financed and operated under Nay</main>