ELECTROLAND GHANA LIMITED VRS MADAM PAULINA ADOMAKO (J4/47/2023) [2024] GHASC 10 (28 February 2024)

ELECTROLAND GHANA LIMITED VRS MADAM PAULINA ADOMAKO (J4/47/2023) [2024] GHASC 10 (28 February 2024)

Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence to rebut the claimant's presumption of sole ownership. No claim or evidence of joint ownership or equitable right by the defendant was presented. The property cannot be attached for the defendant's judgment debt as it is not marital property and no equitable right was proved.

Citation
ELECTROLAND GHANA LIMITED VRS MADAM PAULINA ADOMAKO (J4/47/2023) [2024] GHASC 10 (28 February 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Electroland Ghana Limited; Defendant/respondent: Madam Paulina Adomako (operating under the name and style of Bignma Enterprise); Claimant/respondent/respondent: Kingsley Adomako
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
28 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Execution of Judgment, Matrimonial Property, Interpleader Proceedings, Presumption of Ownership
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Property Law Family Law Summary Judgment Execution of Judgment Matrimonial Property Interpleader Proceedings Presumption of Ownership

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electroland Ghana Limited

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

Madam Paulina Adomako (operating under the name and style of Bignma Enterprise)

Defendant/respondent

Kingsley Adomako

Claimant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether property acquired during marriage is marital property subject to attachment for judgment debt
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's sole ownership of the property was rebutted
  3. 3 Whether equitable rights in matrimonial property arise absent divorce or dissolution

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence to rebut the claimant's presumption of sole ownership. No claim or evidence of joint ownership or equitable right by the defendant was presented. The property cannot be attached for the defendant's judgment debt as it is not marital property and no equitable right was proved.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed as completely without merit.
  • Findings of the lower courts affirmed: property is solely owned by claimant and cannot be attached for defendant's debt.