AUGUSTINA MENSAH BAMIDELE vs. FRANCIS BAMIDELE [2020]DLCA9373

Date	2020-03-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/194/2014
Citation No.	[2020]DLCA9373

DENNIS ADJEI JA (PRESIDING)

HENRY A. KWOFIE JA

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

D. F. KORSAH BROWN FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

KWABLA D. SENANU FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

[2020]DLCA9373
																																						<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" >AUGUSTINA
MENSAH BAMIDELE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS
BAMIDELE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></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">

SUIT NO.
HI/194/2014&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: 5TH MARCH, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>D.
F. KORSAH BROWN FOR THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT<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">

KWABLA D. SENANU FOR THE
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>DENNIS
ADJEI JA (PRESIDING), HENRY A. KWOFIE JA, ANTHONY OPPONG JA<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ANTHONY OPPONG JA:<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner/Respondent (hereinafter
to be called Petitioner) and the Respondent/Appellant (hereinafter called to be
called Respondent) customarily got married in 1990 and subsequently converted
it to Ordinance Marriage at the Registrar General’s Office on 9th
July, 1996. The marriage lasted for 18 years. On the 28th of June,
2010 the High Court dissolved the marriage based on the evidence that had then
been adduced on record. Thereafter, the trial High Court proceeded to gather
more evidence in full for purposes of determining the ancillary reliefs
relating particularly on property right settlement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the full trial of the petition,
the High Court settled or decided the property rights of the parties as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I order the Respondent to convey all
his title and interest in the school known as Integrity International with all
structures and buildings and the land at Anyaa to the Petitioner<o:p></o:p>b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I order the Respondent to convey all
his title and interest in the land at Mallam Junction with all structures and
buildings thereon to the petitioner<o:p></o:p>c&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I order the Petitioner to convey all
her title and interest in the sawmill at Anyaa together with the land,
structures and machinery thereon to the Respondent<o:p></o:p>d&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
I declare that the house at Sowutuom
and the land at Ablekuma are commonly owned by the parties and shall be held in
equal shares.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Respondent being dissatisfied with
the decision of the High Court pertaining to the property settlement as
indicated above appealed to this Court. The relief the Respondent sought from
this court on the notice of appeal is for an “order to settle the Integrity
International School jointly on both the Petitioner/Respondent and the
Respondent/Appellant”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It may be observed that in the Amended
Petition, the Petitioner sought a declaration that the matrimonial home at
Sowutuom was largely developed by her and same be declared her bona fide
property subject to her paying the assessed value of Respondent’s contribution.
She again sought declaration that Integrity International school, the land at
Ablekuma, the land at Gbawe, land at Malam Junction, school at Anyaa as well as
the sawmill at Anyaa are her personal properties. The Respondent also made a
case by way of cross petition that the house at Sowutuom, the Integrity
International school at Anyaa, sawmill at Gbawe and lands situate at Gbawe and
Ablekuma are his personal properties. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the main, both parties laid claim
of exclusive ownership to the properties mentioned in the petition and the
cross petition as his or own self acquired property. But what did the evidence
as a whole establish?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is worth noting that the finding of
fact competently made by the trial high court relating to each of the
properties in issue is absolutely supportive of the evidence as a whole.
Beginning with the house at Sowutuom the learned high court judge painstakingly
evaluated the evidence and, correctly in my view, found that the land on which
the matrimonial house at Sowutuom was constructed was bought by respondent and
in fact the land was developed to some extent before respondent married petitioner
who contributed in no small measure in completing it for their use as the
matrimonial house. The Court below admirably reached the conclusion that “With specific contributions not known the
law would demand equality which in itself is equity. The parties shall
therefore be vested with 50% share each in the Sowutuom matrimon</main>