Owusua Vrs Akotua [2006] GHACA 19 (3 November 2006)

Owusua Vrs Akotua [2006] GHACA 19 (3 November 2006)

The court held that the petitioner's domestic and supportive activities during the marriage did not crystallize into a legal or equitable interest in the matrimonial home under current law. However, the trial judge was correct in awarding both a piece of land and a lump sum as part of financial provision under Section 20(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The lump sum was increased from ¢10.0 million to ¢15.0 million due to inadequacy in light of the facts and economic conditions.

Citation
[2006] GHACA 19
Parties
Petitioner/appellant/respondent: Janet Owusua; Respondent/respondent/appellant: Theophilus Akotua
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Divorce and Property Settlement / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partially allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Divorce, Matrimonial Property, Financial Provision, Customary Marriage
Source Language
English
Family Law Divorce Matrimonial Property Financial Provision Customary Marriage

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Owusua

Petitioner/appellant/respondent

Theophilus Akotua

Respondent/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Divorce and Property Settlement / Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interest in the matrimonial home based on her contributions during marriage
  2. 2 Whether the lump sum awarded as financial provision was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in awarding both a piece of land and a lump sum to the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the petitioner's domestic and supportive activities during the marriage did not crystallize into a legal or equitable interest in the matrimonial home under current law. However, the trial judge was correct in awarding both a piece of land and a lump sum as part of financial provision under Section 20(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The lump sum was increased from ¢10.0 million to ¢15.0 million due to inadequacy in light of the facts and economic conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal partially allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Lump sum award to petitioner increased to ¢15.0 million.
  • Order for conveyance of a piece of land to petitioner upheld.