KATE AFFRAM MENSAH vs. CHARLES AFFRAM MENSAH [2023]DLCA17141

Date	2023-01-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/174/2021
Citation No.	[2023]DLCA17141

HENRY KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING)

ANTHONY OPPONG JA

RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA

NAA ODOFOLEY NORTEY FOR PETTIONER/APPELLANT

[2023]DLCA17141
																																						<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" ><a name="_Hlk152849823">KATE AFFRAM MENSAH <o:p></o:p></a>(PETITIONER/APPELANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHARLES AFFRAM MENSAH
<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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;">

SUIT NO. H1/174/2021&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 19TH&nbsp;JANUARY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HENRY KWOFIE JA (PRESIDING), ANTHONY OPPONG JA, RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG
JA<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="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>&nbsp;RICHARD ADJEI-FRIMPONG JA:<o:p></o:p>The quest of this trial as is usual with matrimonial causes was for the trial Circuit Court<o:p></o:p>to determine issues of dissolution of the parties’
marriage, property settlement and child custody.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The parties contracted a customary marriage in 1980 and
later in 1999, had same converted into an ordinance marriage. The relationship
was blessed with four children namely Amanda--30 years, Josephine—26,
Michael—23 and Joel—11.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From the facts, the relationship had in recent years
turned acrimonious a key manifestation of which had been their living apart. The wife (petitioner), who is a trader
has been living with the children in the matrimonial home whilst the husband
(respondent) an accountant, lives elsewhere.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the trial, not much turned on the dissolution of the
marriage. The parties were ad idem that their marriage had broken down beyond
reconciliation. Indeed, both had, in the petition and response respectively,
asked for dissolution. The petitioner in addition asked for an order to be
declared a joint owner of the matrimonial home at Santa Maria and two other
properties namely, a block of seven shops at Santa Maria and another of four shops
with one bedroom
apartment at Sowutuom
all in Accra. She also prayed that custody of Joel the last and only
child who had not attained majority at the time be granted to her.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The respondent also sought a dissolution of the marriage
and likewise custody of Joel. He contested the claim that the properties be
declared jointly owned for the reason that the petitioner in no way made any
contribution towards their acquisition.<o:p></o:p>The trial judge without much ado dissolved the marriage.
He proceeded to settle the matrimonial home in favour of the respondent, the
Sowutuom property in favour of the petitioner
and the block
of seven shops
between the two of them,
four to the respondent
and three to the petitioner. He also granted custody of Joel to the respondent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The petitioner is dissatisﬁed </s</main>