MARTIN J. VERDOSE vs. PATRICIA ABENA VERDOSE-KURANCHIE [2017]DLSC2509

Date	2017-01-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/45/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLSC2509

ANIN YEBOAH JSC [PRESIDING]

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

BENIN JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC.

CHARLES BENTUM WITH HIM MISS LETICIA AFFUL FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

PETER ASANTE ACQUAH FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLSC2509
																																						<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" >MARTIN J.
VERDOSE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PATRICIA
ABENA VERDOSE-KURANCHIE&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, 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.
J4/45/2016&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;DATE:
25TH JANUARY,
2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CHARLES
BENTUM WITH HIM MISS LETICIA AFFUL FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<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">

PETER
ASANTE ACQUAH FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>ANIN
YEBOAH, JSC [PRESIDING] BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC. BENIN, JSC.APPAU, JSC. AND PWAMANG,
JSC.<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">JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>PWAMANG,
JSC.<o:p></o:p>The
facts giving rise to this appeal are fairly simple. The
petitioner/respondent/respondent, hereafter referred to in this judgment as the
petitioner, is a Dutch national while the respondent/appellant/appellant, to be
referred to as the respondent, is a Ghanaian lady. They got married in Holland
in 1984 and after a brief sojourn in Libya they moved to live in Ghana. They
were living together at McCarthy Hill, Accra, but problems later developed in
the marriage and petitioner moved out of the matrimonial home. The parties have
two adopted female children aged 16 and 9 years as at 2007. He subsequently
filed a petition for divorce and ancillary reliefs. Respondent also crossed
petitioned and prayed for a dissolution of the marriage and ancillary reliefs.
After a trial at which only the parties testified without calling witnesses the
High Court gave judgment on 11th May,2009 and made orders dissolving the
marriage and for custody and maintenance of the children. However, whereas in
the ancillary reliefs the petitioner prayed the court to make orders for
settlement of properties acquired during the marriage the court did not make any
such orders but rather held that the properties, including the McCarthy Hill
house which is registered in the name of respondent alone, were jointly owned
by the parties.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent appealed against the judgment and the Court of Appeal in its
judgment dated 28th May, 2015 dismissed the appeal but set aside the
part of the judgment of the High Court where it held that the properties were
jointly owned. The Court of Appeal then proceeded, after reviewing the evidence
led, to declare that the petitioner was the absolute owner of the McCarthy Hill
house and settled it in his favour. The court made a further order directed at
the respondent to transfer it to the petitioner. The court settled the rest of
the properties being; a six bedroom house with boys quarters at Nsuta, a plot
of land also at McCarthy Hill, all the assets of &nbsp;Verdark Company established by the parties,
Toyota Land Cruiser and Volvo Station Wagon, &nbsp;on the respondent and the children.<o:p></o:p>The
respondent is dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal and has
appealed to this court on the following grounds;<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned justices of the
Court of Appeal erred when they (sic) settled the matrimonial house property at
McCarthy Hill, a freehold property, on the Petitioner/Respondent/respondent, a
foreigner contrary to Article 266 of the 1992 Constitution.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The settlement of the
matrimonial property by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal in violation
of the 1992 Constitution in favour of Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent is null
and void and cannot pass any interest in the property to the
Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned judges of the
Court of Appeal misconceived the import of the phrase “jointly acquired” under
Article 22(3) of the 1992 Constitution when it settled the whole matrimonial
home property on the Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent on the basis that he
alone financed the acquisition of that property<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<!--[en</main>