KOFI ATAKORA vs. ELIZABETH ABENA DARKO [2019]DLHC9121

Date	2019-02-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BDMC/88/12
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9121

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)

CANDY FRIMPONG BAIDOO FOR PETITIONER

LISA ACQUAH FOR FIONA ASAFO ADJAYE FOR RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC9121
																																						<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" >KOFI ATAKORA<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ELIZABETH ABENA DARKO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO. BDMC/88/12&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:
28TH FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CANDY FRIMPONG BAIDOO FOR
PETITIONER&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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">

LISA
ACQUAH FOR FIONA ASAFO ADJAYE FOR RESPONDENT&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>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">

HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Petitioner, Kofi Atakora, filed a
petition for divorce against the Respondent, Elizabeth Darko. Among others, he
prayed for dissolution of the customary marriage celebrated by the parties and
for ancillary reliefs. After evidence had been taken on the preliminary issue
of whether or not their purported marriage was a nullity, the Court found that
the customary marriage celebrated between the parties was a nullity because the
Respondent was in a subsisting ordinance marriage with another man that had not
been dissolved at the time she purported to enter into a customary marriage
with the Petitioner. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In view of this finding, I proceeded to
annul the customary marriage between the parties and pursuant to the provisions
of section 21 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971, Act 367, invited the parties
to adduce evidence to enable the Court to make a determination of the ancillary
reliefs sought by both sides. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the case of Mrs. Theresa Owuo v Francis
Owuo Civil Appeal No. J4/20/2017, the trial Court made a similar
finding that the ordinance marriage celebrated between the parties, Mr and Mrs.
Owuo, was a nullity as the Respondent had a subsisting marriage with another
party at the material time. On a further Appeal to the Supreme Court, it was
held per Akoto Bamfo JSC that;<o:p></o:p>“Where therefore the marriage is
declared nullity, the Respondent is required to prove with sufficient
particularity that she made substantial contribution towards the acquisition of
the property… What amounts to a substantial contribution, may be ascertained
from the factors attending to the acquisition and the conduct of the partners
subsequent to the acquisition and to determine whether they intended to hold
the property jointly. Owing to the nature of the relationship, there could be
lack of hard evidence on the contributions, evidence with mathematical
precision of the contributions would not be forthcoming, for it would be unjust
to apply the ordinary incidents of commerce in these circumstances…The
contributions could be in cash or kind.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In support of this statement, Her Ladyship
Akoto Bamfo JSC, cited Section 21 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 Act 367
which provides that: <o:p></o:p>“when
a decree of divorce or nullity is granted if the Court is satisfied that either
party to the marriage, holds title to movable or immovable property part or all
of which rightfully belongs to the other, the Court shall order transfer or
conveyance of the interest to the party entitled to it on the terms that the Court
thinks just and equitable.’’<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant suit, the Petitioner
prayed for the following ancillary reliefs;<o:p></o:p>