ALHAJI ABDULAI KWAME SHOWUMI vs. MADAM FATIMA KROATIOKOR WILLIAMS [2016]DLHC11565

Date	2016-06-24
Suit No.	BMSC/59/2012
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11565

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

SAMUEL KOJO ANDREWS FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION

FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT PRESENT

[2016]DLHC11565
																																						<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 ABDULAI KWAME SHOWUMI<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MADAM FATIMA KROATIOKOR WILLIAMS<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;tab-stops:177.0pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SAMUEL
KOJO ANDREWS FOR THE APPLICANT PRESENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT PRESENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)<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 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:179.25pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;By
the instant application, the Applicant herein, VIDA NAA LAMILEY LAMPTEY seeks
to join this divorce suit as Co -Petitioner.&nbsp;
The grounds upon which the Applicant mounts the present application can
be found particularly in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the affidavit in
support.&nbsp;&nbsp; According to the Applicant,
she has been customarily married to the Petitioner herein with whom she has two
children since 1986. <o:p></o:p>She
admits that she knew that the Petitioner was previously married to the
Respondent under Customary Law but claims that the said marriage had, to the
best of her knowledge been dissolved.&nbsp;
She alleges that news of the Petitioner’s Ordinance marriage to the
Respondent came as a complete shock to her since she was married to Petitioner
and living with him as his customary law wife at the time the said ordinance
marriage is supposed to have been contracted.&nbsp;
She therefore contends that the said ordinance marriage if true, is in
law null and void and on that basis applies to join the present suit as
“Co-Petitioner” on grounds that she has “a vested interest in the case”.&nbsp; She prays that the application is granted to
ensure that all matters in dispute are effectively and completely adjudicated
upon.<o:p></o:p>The
instant application was not opposed by the Petitioner.&nbsp; Respondent however, vehemently opposes the
application on legal grounds. Counsel for Respondent at the hearing of the
application challenged the propriety of the instant application on the basis
that the concept of “Co-Petitioner” is unknown to our laws or rules of
procedure.&nbsp; She contended that the rules
make provision for a person to be joined to a divorce suit as Co-Respondent but
not as Co–Petitioner.&nbsp; She reasoned that
even in a customary marriage which is potentially polygamous, the marriage
contract is essentially between two individuals to the exclusion of all others.
<o:p></o:p>Counsel
therefore contends that the instant application is incompetent and should
therefore be dismissed.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
Applicant states that she brings this application under order 4 Rule 5(2)(b) of the High (Court Civil Procedure) Rules,2004 CI
47 which states as follows:<o:p></o:p>(2)“At any stage of the proceedings the
Court may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on
application.<o:p></o:p>(b)Order any person who ought to have
been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to
ensure that all matters in dispute in the proceedings are effectively and
completely determined and adjudicated upon to be added as a party.”<o:p></o:p>In
my view, the issues that arise from the pleadings are:<o:p></o:p>* Whether the Parties are entitled to
their respective prayers for the dissolution&nbsp;&nbsp;
of the marriage<o:p></o:p>* Whether Respondent is entitled to a
share of the house at Bubuashie and <o:p></o:p>* Whether Respondent should be allowed
to retain her house at Kaneshie .<o:p></o:p>The
essence of Order 4 r 5 (b) is to
ensure that a Party joins a suit in order to aid in the effective and complete
adjudication of matters in dispute. The Applicant seeks to join the suit as”
Co-Petitioner” in a bid to prove that the marriage <o:p></o:p>contracted
between the parties is a nullity.&nbsp; I do
not think the validity of the marriage is in contention in these divorce
proceedings.&nbsp; I therefore do not see how
the Applicant becomes a necessary Party to the determination of the matters in
dispute.&nbsp; However, assuming without
obviously admitting, that the presence of the Applicant is essential to the
determination of matters in dispute, the crucial question is whether the rules
provide for the position of Co-Petitioner. As Counsel for Respondent rightly
pointed out, a marriage to all intents and purposes is exclusively between two
individuals. It is for this reason that even in polygamous marriages, the
dissolution of a marriage contracted between a husband and one of his wives
cannot affect the validity or status of the other wife or wives.&nbsp; The exclusive nature of a marriage is further
buttressed by the fact that under order 65
R 7(1) and (2) of CI 47, the only person allowed to join
or be joined to a divorce suit is one, against whom the grave charge of
adultery has been leveled.&nbsp; As
Co-Petitioner what will be the status of the Applicant in these divorce
proceedings? Will she be claiming the same reliefs as the Petitioner?&nbsp; Obviously not!&nbsp; The Applicant’s contention is that the
Parties’ marriage, by reason of her allegations is null and void.&nbsp; Unlike the </main>