ALBERTA OWUSU ANTWI vs. THOMAS OWUSU ANTWI [2021]DLCA10006

Date	2021-01-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO.HI/199/2019
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA10006

OFOE J.A

GAISIE J.A

OPPONG J.A

AKUSHIKA DADZIE FOR RESPONDENT

KWASI KWAKYE-SERBEH FOR APPELLANT

[2021]DLCA10006
																																						<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" >ALBERTA OWUSU ANTWI<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THOMAS OWUSU ANTWI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.HI/199/2019&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: 14TH JANUARY,
2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AKUSHIKA DADZIE FOR RESPONDENT<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;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">KWASI KWAKYE-SERBEH FOR
APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>OFOE J.A, GAISIE J.A, OPPONG J.A<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;line-height:115%;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;OFOE,J.A:<o:p></o:p>In
this delivery we will retain the description of the parties as they were in the
trial court- the appellant we will refer to as the respondent and the
respondent in this appeal we will refer to as the petitioner. <o:p></o:p>The
relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner customarily got married to
the respondent on the 17th of August 1996. After the marriage the
petitioner lived in Abbosey Okai whilst the respondent lived in Japan. But in March
1998, petitioner left the shores of Ghana to join the husband, the respondent,
in Japan. In September 2008, ie after about 10 years stay in Japan she was
deported and compelled to leave all her belongings behind. Some were sent to
her through the intervention of FIDA.&nbsp;
The pleadings of the parties disclose that even before the deportation the
marriage was going through trials. Having arrived in Ghana and finding no signs
of its resuscitation the petitioner sought from the trial court dissolution of
the marriage and other consequential reliefs were:<o:p></o:p>“2.An
order that the petitioner is entitled to one half of the&nbsp; bedroom house lying and situate at Taifa.<o:p></o:p>3.
An order that the petitioner is entitled to one half of all the vehicles
namely, 3 Urvan buses and 1 Pajero4 x 4 vehicle.<o:p></o:p>4.
An order that the respondent must ship all the petitioner’s personal effects to
her in Ghana<o:p></o:p>5.
An order that the respondent pays the petitioner a lump sum as financial
provision.<o:p></o:p>6.
Any further order or orders as to this Honourable Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p>7.
An order that the respondent be mulcted with costs of this suit”.<o:p></o:p>At
the close of trial judgment was given the petitioner for 30 % of the value of
the house in Taifa and a lump sum payment of GHC20,000.00 was ordered to be
paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Aggrieved at these orders the
respondent has appealed to this court on what we see to be three main grounds,
to wit<o:p></o:p>I.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The judgment is against the
weight of evidence<o:p></o:p>II.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In the face of
preponderating evidence pointing to the fact that the Taifa property was single
handedly acquired and constructed by the respondent before the marriage, His
Lordship ignored the evidence and decreed that the Petitioner should have 30%
share in its value. His Lordship’s wrong finding of facts has occasioned the
respondent substantial miscarriage of justice<o:p></o:p>III.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New </main>