Arthur Vrs Arthur [2014] GHASC 127 (4 February 2014)

Arthur Vrs Arthur [2014] GHASC 127 (4 February 2014)

The application for review fails because the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a fundamental error resulting in miscarriage of justice. The arguments merely rehashed those already considered and rejected by the ordinary bench, and the law now supports equality in division of marital property regardless of direct contribution.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 127
Parties
Petitioner/respondent/appellant/respondent: Patience Arthur; Respondent/appellant/respondent/applicant: Moses Arthur
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
4 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Ordinary Bench Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Marriage, Division of Matrimonial Property, Review Jurisdiction, Discretionary Powers, Equality in Property Division
Source Language
English
Family Law Constitutional Law Dissolution of Marriage Division of Matrimonial Property Review Jurisdiction Discretionary Powers Equality in Property Division

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patience Arthur

Petitioner/respondent/appellant/respondent

Moses Arthur

Respondent/appellant/respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Review Motion / Supreme Court Review of Ordinary Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant review of the Supreme Court's ordinary bench judgment restoring the High Court's division of matrimonial property
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in granting half share of the storey building to the Respondent without evidence of contribution

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review fails because the applicant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a fundamental error resulting in miscarriage of justice. The arguments merely rehashed those already considered and rejected by the ordinary bench, and the law now supports equality in division of marital property regardless of direct contribution.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • Decision of the Supreme Court ordinary bench delivered on July 26th 2013 affirmed.
  • Review application stands dismissed.