AMA SERWAA vs. GARIBA HASHIMU AND ISSAKA HASHIMU [2021]DLSC10154

Date	2021-04-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10154

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

BOBBY BANSON ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

ALFRED AGYEI-MENSAH ESQ FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2021]DLSC10154
																																						<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" >AMA SERWAA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GARIBA HASHIMU AND ISSAKA HASHIMU&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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" 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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/31/2020&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 APRIL, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>BOBBY BANSON ESQ
FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<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">ALFRED
AGYEI-MENSAH ESQ FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC
(PRESIDING), DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU
(MRS.) JSC, KULENDI JSC<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;PROF MENSA-BONSU (MRS.), JSC:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This
is a case which appears simple on its face, but which is not so, in reality,
having arisen out of the relations of two migrant workers from Ghana who met
and cohabited as a couple, in Napoli, Italy. The female believed they were in
an amorous relationship and that marriage between them was imminent, whilst the
male had other ideas and therefore initially disputed the basis of the belief
of the existence of an amorous relationship. There is thus a mix of love,
commercial sex work, misplaced trust, manipulation of the system and intrigue,
to the befuddlement of lawyers and judges alike.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Although presented as one case, it actually consists
of a total of three cases in the High Court; and an appeal to the Court of
Appeal, which has culminated in the instant appeal to this honourable court. The
equitable maxim “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” is a
maxim that has been brought to life and prayed in aid in order to do justice for
all the parties in this case.<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p>This is a case in which most of the basic facts
had to be pried out of the defendant, and so cannot be retold without reference
to the difference between the accounts of the two parties. On account of the
reversal of roles in the appeals before the Court of Appeal and this honourable
court, the plaintiff/respondent/appellant would simply be referred to herein as
‘plaintiff’, and the 2nd defendant/appellant/respondent as
‘defendant’ unless the context requires more specific reference, since the 1st
defendant, his father, did not join the appeal in the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>According to the plaintiff, the parties met between
2000 and 2001 in Udinese, Italy and formed an amorous relationship. Although
the defendant initially disputed the years, putting their initial meeting at
2003, he eventually admitted to the years 2000-2001.&nbsp; He also disputed the amorous connection, but
he eventually admitted that they “fell in love for an indefinite period”. On
the record, the relationship lasted some five years, which again, the Defendant
insisted was only some two years. According to the plaintiff, she gave up her
job in a carpentry business in Udinese and moved to Napoli for a better job at
defendant’s urging, only to discover that it was prostitution (i.e. commercial
sex work as it is now known) that the defendant intended. Whatever her
motivation was, she got into the trade and worked for a few years, alleging
that she turned over her earnings to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that
they hoped to get married and set up home in Ghana and so she was introduced to
defendant’s parents and she also introduced defendant to her family. The
parties were never formally married, because the relationship fell apart when
they returned to Ghana, initially for a short spell. <o:p></o:p>In the course of the relationship, the defendant paid
a brief visit to Ghana, during which arrangements to acquire the properties
were made. Vehicles had also been shipped by the plaintiff in 2002, to someone
whose name corresponded with that of 1st defendant, for them to be
kept for the couple. The plaintiff later returned to Ghana, having lost her
travel documents on account of some mishap. She averred that she found that the
vehicles could not be accounted for, and a visit to the Licensing office told
her that the vehicles had been sold by 1st defendant. Unfortunately
for plaintiff, she was never able to return to Italy. The defendant promised to
help her acquire fresh papers to return and introduced an agent who was going
to provide the service. With the defendant acting as her guarantor, she raised
a loan from Unique Trust Financial Services on the back of a Mercedes Benz car,
which defendant claimed as his, as collateral. This is the vehicle whose return
forms part of defendant’s counterclaim against the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>Whilst in Ghana they cohabited briefly at Tantra
Hills, a suburb of Accra, in rented accommodation, as one of the properties, the
Madina House was, allegedly not yet ready for occupation. When she began to
hear stories of how the defendant was carrying on with other women at the
Madina house, she in</main>