Serwaa Vrs Hashimu & Anor [2022] GHASC 107 (14 April 2022)

Serwaa Vrs Hashimu & Anor [2022] GHASC 107 (14 April 2022)

The Court of Appeal erred by allowing the defendant to argue legal issues not pleaded in the notice of appeal and without leave, thereby denying the plaintiff an opportunity to respond, which occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff established, on a balance of probabilities, her contribution to the acquisition of properties during the relationship, entitling her to reliefs under the doctrine of constructive trust. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restored the High Court's judgment (except as to costs paid to the 1st defendant).

Citation
[2022] GHASC 107
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Ama Serwaa; 1st Defendant: Gariba Hashimu; 2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent: Issaka Hashimu
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; High Court judgment restored (except as to costs paid to 1st defendant).
Legal Topics
Breach of Promise to Marry, Constructive Trust, Burden of Proof, Grounds of Appeal, Foreign Law, Public Policy, Illegality, Amendment of Grounds of Appeal
Source Language
English
Family Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Breach of Promise to Marry Constructive Trust Burden of Proof Grounds of Appeal Foreign Law +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ama Serwaa

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Gariba Hashimu

1st Defendant

Issaka Hashimu

2nd Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing legal issues not pleaded in the notice of appeal to be argued without leave and without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reliefs for breach of promise to marry and a share in properties acquired during the relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal erred by allowing the defendant to argue legal issues not pleaded in the notice of appeal and without leave, thereby denying the plaintiff an opportunity to respond, which occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff established, on a balance of probabilities, her contribution to the acquisition of properties during the relationship, entitling her to reliefs under the doctrine of constructive trust. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal's decision and restored the High Court's judgment (except as to costs paid to the 1st defendant).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; High Court judgment restored (except as to costs paid to 1st defendant).

Orders

  • Set aside the Court of Appeal judgment on the issues of new legal points and burden of proof.
  • Restore the High Court's judgment in favour of the plaintiff, except for the Ghc 5,000 costs paid to 1st defendant.