SAMUEL BAIDOO vs. BEATRICE BAIDOO [2016]DLCA8427

Date	2016-10-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/25/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA8427

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

F.G. KORBIEH J.A.

MARGARET WELBOURBE (MRS) J.A.

JOSEPH AWAKPAKSA FOR THE APPELLANT

EDWARD BRIKU-BOADU FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA8427
																																						<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" >SAMUEL BAIDOO<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">vs.<o:p></o:p>BEATRICE BAIDOO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/25/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 27TH OCT, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOSEPH AWAKPAKSA FOR THE APPELLANT<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">

EDWARD BRIKU-BOADU
FOR THE RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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">

MARIAMA OWUSU (MISS)
J.A. (PRESIDING), F.G. KORBIEH J.A., MARGARET WELBOURBE (MRS) J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

<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>F.G.
KORBIEH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>A summary of the essential facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the
parties were a couple who first married under customary law which they later
converted into a marriage under the Ordinance on the 12th April,
2002. According to the petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to only as
the appellant) the respondent/respondent (hereinafter referred to only as the
respondent) had behaved in such a manner that he could not reasonably be
expected to live with her. He gave two main reasons for not being reasonably
expected to live with the respondent. The first was that the respondent failed
to look properly after his three children and the second was that the
respondent refused to look after his economic and/or financial interests whilst
he was away in Jordan in the Middle East doing a U.N. job and rather used some
of his assets to run her own businesses. He added that several attempts to
reconcile the parties had failed. The respondent had filed an answer and a
cross-petition. In that process, the respondent had denied almost all of the
material allegations of fact made by the appellant, especially those concerning
the ownership of properties made by the petitioner. She had also averred that
before the marriage she was a successful business woman who had been a civil
engineering contractor and that it was she who had used her money and expertise
to remodel their matrimonial home at Adjiringanor into an ultramodern residential
complex, the Dansoman house into a hostel and many others. She therefore
cross-petitioned for divorce and asked the court for a number of reliefs which
I shall go into in due course. At the end of the trial, the court gave judgment
in favour of the respondent and ordered that the marriage be dissolved. The
court further ordered as follows: “the parties are entitled to fifty percent
(50%) each of the Amrahia properties. They are in addition entitled to an equal
share of fifty percent (50%) each in the Adjiringanor property. I further order
that the Dansoman property be valued and the respondent be given twenty percent
(20%) converted into cash, a (sic) her contribution seeing as this has always
been the intention of the Petitioner.” The court also awarded a lump sum
payment of GHC50,000.00 “by way of alimony” and costs of GHC15,000.00 against
the appellant. <o:p></o:p>It is this judgment that the appellant has appealed
against. He has listed the following grounds of appeal:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In
the face of the preponderating evidence tilting to the conclusion that the
petitioner/appellant solely acquired the Adjiringanor, East Legon property
prior to the marriage with the respondent, the Circuit Court judge erred in
decreeing that the Respondent/Respondent has 50% interest in the said property.<o:p></o:p>c.