PETER ADJEI vs. MARGARET ADJEI [2021]DLSC10156

Date	2021-04-21
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/06/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10156

APPAU JSC (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

M.N.Y ACHIAMPONG (MRS.) ESQ FOR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

BRIGHT OTCHERE-AGYEKUM ESQ FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT

[2021]DLSC10156
																																						<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" >PETER ADJEI<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARGARET ADJEI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/06/2021&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: 21ST APRIL, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>M.N.Y ACHIAMPONG (MRS.) ESQ FOR
RESPONDENT/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;">

BRIGHT OTCHERE-AGYEKUM ESQ FOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>APPAU
JSC (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC, LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC,
AMADU 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:normal;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;THE MAJORITY DECISION OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY APPAU JSC<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;APPAU,
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>This appeal originates from the High Court in a
matrimonial cause initiated by the man of the marriage as Petitioner against
the wife as Respondent. The petitioner prayed the trial court to dissolve the
twelve year old customary marriage between him and the Respondent. The
Petitioner again requested for custody of the two children of the marriage aged
eleven (11) and eight (8) years old. The Respondent, in an amended answer to
the petition, cross-petitioned and prayed for five (5) reliefs against the Petitioner.
The first was that the matrimonial home, which is one of four flats or units of
flats constructed by the Petitioner on his self-acquired plot of land at
Cantonments, Accra, should be settled on her. In her second relief, she prayed
for a lump-sum payment of the sum of four hundred thousand Ghana cedis
(GHc400,000.00) to her by the Petitioner by way of alimony and then thirdly, a
monthly stipend of two thousand Ghana cedis (GHc2,000.00) as maintenance
for&nbsp; herself and the two children. She
again prayed to be given two (2) out of a chain of stores (number not stated),
on the Spintex Road, Accra and then an order that the Petitioner be made to
foot the cost of litigation.<o:p></o:p>The
Decision of the High Court<o:p></o:p>The trial High Court granted the Petitioner’s
prayer for the dissolution of the marriage but dismissed the second one for
custody of the two children. The court granted Respondent custody of the
children but allowed Petitioner limited rights of access to them. On
Respondent’s cross-petition, the trial High Court granted the first three (3)
reliefs prayed for by the Respondent. The trial Court made an order that the
matrimonial home, which is one out of the four units of flats built by the
Petitioner, be settled on the Respondent. The trial Court further ordered
Petitioner to pay the sum of five hundred thousand Ghana cedis (GHc500,000.00)
to the Respondent as alimony and one thousand five hundred Ghana cedis
(GHc1,500.00) instead of the GHc2,000.00 prayed for, as monthly maintenance for
the two children who should be in the custody of the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>The reason the trial court gave for settling one
of the four units of flats on the Cantonment plot on the Respondent was that
the said flats were acquired by the Petitioner during the subsistence of the
marriage at a time the Respondent was the one; “nurturing the family unit by
cooking meals, cleaning, doing laundry and all the associated chores that the
stay-at-home partner in a marriage is expected to do without remuneration”.
The trial judge again made an award of GHc500,000.00 to the Respondent instead
of the GHc400,000.00 she prayed for, the reason being that, Respondent should
use the additional GHc100,000.00 to complete the uncompleted matrimonial house
which the court had settled on her. The trial court, however, dismissed the
claim for two stores along the Spintex road as the Respondent could not lead
any evidence to establish the existence of the alleged chain of stores along
the Spintex road.<o:p></o:p>Appeal
to the Court of Appeal<o:p></o:p>The Petitioner appealed against the decision of
the trial High Court to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was buttressed on six
(6) grounds as stated in the amended notice of appeal. These were:<o:p></o:p>a.<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;
The learned trial judge erred in law when,
notwithstanding the fact that the matrimonial home was acquired before the
marriage and solely funded by the Petitioner, she settled part of it on the
Respondent.<o:p></o:p>