NANA YAA KONADU vs. ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID [2016]DLCA5483

Date	2016-06-08
Suit No.	SUIT NOHI/04/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5483

VICTOR OFOE JUSTICE OF APPEAL

[2016]DLCA5483
																																						<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" >NANA YAA KONADU<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID<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">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>VICTOR OFOE, JUSTICE OF APPEAL<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="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>OFOE,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>This is a supporting judgment to that
delivered by my brother Justice Acquaye. I am in agreement with the facts as
stated in his judgment and his brief narration of the evidence of the parties.
I am also in agreement as to the distribution and the order that the property
be distributed in those proportions. I will refer to the appellant as the
respondent and the respondent in this appeal as the petitioner, that is the
description as they were in the trial court.<o:p></o:p>The
record of appeal discloses a straight forward case of dispute over ownership of
properties acquired during marriage by parties recently divorced by the trial
High Court. The petitioner in her divorce petition stated in paragraph 7 as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“7.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The petitioner says that they have
not jointly acquired any property during the subsistence of their said
monogamous marriage except that both parties have a fifty-fifty share in NAYAK
Co. Ltd”.<o:p></o:p>This
paragraph was fiercely challenged by the respondent. In his amended reply he
stated<o:p></o:p>“3.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In further reply to the said
paragraph 7, the respondent states that the properties listed below were
jointly acquired by the petitioner and respondent in the names of the
petitioner, respondent or Nayak in the manner hereafter stated...”.<o:p></o:p>The
said properties were then listed by the respondent. I will reproduce the list
presently. Respondent cross petitioned for an order for the distribution of all
properties jointly acquired by the parties as itemized in paragraph 3 and 4 of
his answer to the petition.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner challenged the claim of the respondent that the said properties were
jointly acquired. Out of the properties listed petitioner claimed in paragraph
2 of her amended reply and answer to the cross petition that 5 of the listed
properties were exclusively vested in her and this was confirmed in by the
respondent himself in a document which was admitted in evidence and marked as
exhibit E. This exhibit took a centre stage in the trial and would be given the
required attention.<o:p></o:p>From
the positions taken by the parties it is clear to me that one of the major
issues to be determined was the ownership of these properties listed by the
respondent. It is thereafter that any other further orders may be made. Were
the properties owned solely by the petitioner, were they jointly acquired with
the intention of 50/50 ownership or some were company properties?<o:p></o:p>The
properties listed by the respondent are as follows. I will list them in the
order and lettering as presented by the respondent<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;
“a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; House No. OTB 108 &amp;
109, Adum Kumasi<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
House
No 223, Osibisa Close, Airport West Residential Area<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
House
No 21, Aviation Road, Airport West Accra<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
29
Official Road, Adabraka<o:p></o:p>