ALHAJI ABDULAI KWAME SHOWUMI vs MADAM FATIMA KROATIOKOR WILLIAMS [2016]DLHC16397

Date	2016-06-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BMSC/59/2012
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC16397

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

SAMUEL KOJO ANDREWS

[2016]DLHC16397
																																						<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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH
(MRS.) &nbsp;<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

RULING<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>&nbsp;&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;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>&nbsp;(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>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (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>&nbsp;In my view,
the issues that arise from the pleadings are:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;*
Whether the Parties are entitled to their respective prayers for the
dissolution &nbsp;&nbsp;of the marriage<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;* Whether Respondent is entitled
to a share of the house at Bubuashie and <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;* Whether Respondent
should be allowed to retain her house at Kaneshie .<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;