RICHMOND BOAMAH BERIMAH vs. ALBERT NANOR, JANET OPOKU AND PASTOR DAN CATO [2021]DLSC10829

Date	2021-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/22/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10829

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

MARFUL-SAU JSC

N. A. AMEGATCHER JSC

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC

PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

NANA KOFI ENNIN NASUL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

NELSON ATANGA AYAMDOO FOR THE 2ND & 3RD DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.

[2021]DLSC10829
																																						<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" >RICHMOND
BOAMAH BERIMAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALBERT NANOR, JANET OPOKU AND PASTOR
DAN CATO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/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;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. J4/22/2020&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;&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: 24TH MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA KOFI ENNIN
NASUL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/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">NELSON
ATANGA AYAMDOO FOR THE 2ND &amp; 3RD
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), MARFUL-SAU JSC, N. A. AMEGATCHER JSC,
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (MS.) JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) 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, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>The events that have given birth to this case
evoke the wise observation of the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott,<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“Oh what a
tangled web we weave, <o:p></o:p>When first we practice to deceive.” <o:p></o:p>This &nbsp;case involves
a dispute about the ownership of landed property between a husband and wife and
the social fallouts from the economic difficulties that have afflicted the
nation over the past forty odd years, leading couples to adopt all manner of
strategies, including ‘distance marriages’ to secure their economic well-being
and the survival of their families. The cultural assumptions underlying notions
of marriage in Ghana, in which a woman is dependent upon her husband, and the
husband is the one who has the means to acquire landed property which may be
held solely in his name, have come under some strain. In consequence of such
assumptions, ownership of, and title to landed property held in the wife’s name
is seen as a deviation from the normal, and often interpreted through such
cultural lenses as having been conferred by the husband. &nbsp;These assumptions have come under stress from
several angles following the economic independence that many women now enjoy. Nowhere
is this more evident than in the issues thrown up by the phenomenon of migrant
workers involved in international migration. In this paradigm shift, the
relationship between husband and wife is less one of hierarchical dependency
and more of equal partnership. Usually in relationships involving “distance
marriages’ there is division of labour as the balance of economic power shifts
to whichever party earns foreign currency, whilst physical representation in
the jurisdiction is conducted by the one who is home-based. Such is the measure
of trust that the “absentee spouse” must repose in the home-based one that
there would be faithful execution of plans and projects agreed upon, that when this
trust is abused or betrayed by either party, then many difficult issues arise. <o:p></o:p>Some of these old cultural assumptions have been brought
to the fore by the facts of this case, giving rise to the difficulties that
confronted the courts when a husband, upon divorce, brought this action in the High
Court for, inter alia, a declaration to title of a house standing in the name
of his wife, and upon the wife’s counterclaim for declaration of title already
standing in her name. Upon these simple facts, the difficulties in unravelling
the true facts of the case have been tremendous, admittedly caused in no small
measure by the lack of candour of the parties, particularly the Plaintiff.
These difficulties led the High Court to hand down a decision on 1st
February, 2010, that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims as well as the
Defendant’s Counterclaims, leaving neither party the winner, and the landed
property, therefore, “ownerless”. Unsurprisingly, this decision immediately
came under attack, requiring further intervention by appellate courts for the
parties to be able to make sense of the outcome of the case. The wife filed an
appeal against the dismissal of the Counterclaim but the husband did not
cross-appeal. However, in a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, dated 6th
June, 2013, the Court upheld the dismissal of the Counterclaim by the High
Court, and proceeded to grant the reliefs which the husband had been unable to
prove in the High Court, and to make further Orders accordingly. This decision of
the Court of Appeal has resulted in the instant appeal before this honourable Court.
&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;&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;<o:p></o:p></s</main>