LAW TIP
Appellate courts generally should not disturb findings of fact made by a trial court unless there is strong evidence on record to prove otherwise.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“As stated earlier, it is not the duty of an appellate court to disturb the position of a trial court on findings of fact without good reason. The Court of Appeal found no such good reason. We also find none. See the case of Obeng v Assemblies of God Church, Ghana [2010] SCGLR 300 where the court stated as follows:
“Where findings of fact had been made by the trial court and concurred in by the first appellate court (as in the instant case) the second appellate court must be slow in coming to a different conclusion unless it was satisfied that there were strong pieces of evidence on record which were manifestly clear that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court were perverse. It was only in such cases that the findings of fact could be altered thereby disregarding the advantages enjoyed by the trial court in assessing the credibility and demeanour of witnesses”
We do not find the present case to be one such.”
YAW AMPADU V AUGUSTINA ABENA BOAMAH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2023
4TH DECEMBER, 2024
SUPREME COURT
LAW TIP
A spouse does not need to prove financial contribution (whether large or small) in order to be entitled to a share in marital property.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“The first thing to be admitted is that the Petitioner did not prove financial contribution towards the purchase of the matrimonial home, on the balance of probabilities. She did not even sufficiently prove the financial ability to make such a contribution. However, from the authorities, proof of contribution, substantial or otherwise is no longer required for a spouse to benefit from marital property.”
YAW AMPADU V AUGUSTINA ABENA BOAMAH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2023
4TH DECEMBER, 2024
SUPREME COURT
LAW TIP
A court has the power to order the transfer of property to the other spouse (whether acquired before marriage or solely by one spouse) as part of a fair and just property settlement.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“Indeed under section 20 of The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971(Act367) a Court can, where it thinks it just and equitable, convey immovable property as part of financial provision whether it was acquired before the marriage or solely by one party. The said section states as follows:
Property settlement.
(1) The court may order either party to the marriage to pay to the other party such sum of money or convey to the other party such movable or immovable property as settlement of property rights or in lieu thereof or as part of financial provision as the court thinks just and equitable”
The trial court’s settling of the matrimonial property on the Petitioner whether or not it was completed during the sustenance of the marriage was, as stated earlier just and equitable and can further be justified under section 20. This strengthens our decision not to interfere with this award. This ground of appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.”
YAW AMPADU V AUGUSTINA ABENA BOAMAH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2023
4TH DECEMBER, 2024
SUPREME COURT
LAW TIP
A long separation between a married couple does not mean they are divorced. For a marriage to end, the proper divorce process must be followed.
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“A long separation does not amount to a divorce in law until the proper processes for dissolution are gone through. This was a marriage under customary law. The Respondent who is alleging that there had been a divorce had to prove the elements of a customary divorce under Kwahu custom which is admitted to be the custom under which they got married in 1985. The Respondent might learn a lesson from the case of Humphrey-Bonsu and Anor v. Quaynor and Ors {1999-2000} 2 GLR 781, where it was observed that
“The testator erroneously thought that the plaintiff was no longer his wife because of the long period of separation by his family proved him wrong by allowing the woman to perform customary rite assigned to widows. In my view, the testator was rather guilty of constructive desertion. The learned judge therefore correctly applied the case of Hughes v. Hughes [1973] 2 GLR 342 and Re Caveat by Clara Sackitey (supra) on the legal effect of separation, that it does not constitute dissolution though it may be a prelude to it”
YAW AMPADU V AUGUSTINA ABENA BOAMAH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2023
4TH DECEMBER, 2024
SUPREME COURT
LAW TIP
In an appeal, the party challenging the decision must prove the lower court erred, either by findings not supported by evidence/ by misapplying the law.
AMPADU V BOAMAH (J4/48/2023) (4/12/2024)
QUOTE FROM JUDGEMENT
“It is trite that the Respondent, who is appealing the judgment of the Court of Appeal carries the onus of pointing out the lapses in the said court’s findings e.g. that they are not borne out by the evidence on record or sin again the law.
The case of Djin v Musa Baako [2007-2008] SCGLR refers”
YAW AMPADU V AUGUSTINA ABENA BOAMAH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/48/2023
4TH DECEMBER, 2024
SUPREME COURT