JUDGMENT  
BY COURT: By the Plaintiffs amended Writ of Summons filed on 19th May 2014 the following reliefs were claimed.  
a) A declaration that house Number B314/18, Bubiashie is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the 1st defendant. b) An Order restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants or their agents from disposing off the property known as house number B314/18 Bubiashie, Accra. c) An Order restraining the 4th Defendant from purchasing the property known as House Number B314/18, Bubiashie Accra, from 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants or their agents or privies.   
P a g e | 2  
In the statement of claim that accompanied the writ, the plaintiff pleaded that she is the wife of the 1st Defendant and that they had been married for about 50 years under Ghana Customary Law and had eight (8) children.  That she the Plaintiff assisted the 1st Defendant to complete House Number B314/15 Bubiashie, and had lived in the said house as the matrimonial home.  The Plaintiffs pleading stated further that the 1st Defendant being a citizen to Togo has since 2011 left Ghana to settle in his country, the Republic of Togo and Authorized the 2nd and 3rd defendants to sell off the house in issue. In furtherance to the threat to sell the house the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants wrote to her by their Solicitor and asked her to vacate from the house. That should the house be sold, she would be rendered homeless. The defence of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants is that the Plaintiff is the wife of the 1st Defendant, who was eighty-four in 2013 when the defence was filed.  He also admitted that he is a Togolease, but was born in Ghana.  That he is now partially resident at Dabala and Togo and that when he was leaving Accra he asked the Plaintiff to join him, but she refused.  That 1st Defendant pleaded further that he moved because of the ill treatment meted out to him by the Plaintiff and her children  who sometimes beat him up and even refuse to give him food. The 1st Defendant pleaded further that all the eight children he had with the Plaintiff are of age and therefore he is under no obligation to provide them with accommodation.  The 1st Defendant denied that he jointly acquired the house with the Plaintiff, and pleaded specifically that he built the house before he married the Plaintiff.  The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants pleaded further that the house had already been sold since the 1st Defendant has relocated, and the house has ceased to be a matrimonial home.  The Plaintiff should join her husband if she considers herself as the wife of the 1st defendant especially as the 1st defendant has asked her to join him.  The 1st defendant pleaded further that he disposed off the Bubiashie house to use the accrued income to rehabilitate his houses at Dabala and Togo. The 1st Defendant Counter-claimed as follows: a) Declaration that the house in question is the self acquired property of the 1st Defendant. b) Declaration that once the 1st Defendant has relocated, the house ceases to be a matrimonial home. c) An Order requiring Plaintiff and her children and tenants claiming through them to vacate the premises and give vacant possession to the purchaser. The 4th Defendant also filed a defence and pleaded that she is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.  She then Counter-claimed as follows: 
P a g e | 3  
a) Declaration that the landed property numbered B314/18 situate at Bubiashie Accra is the self-acquired property of the 1st Defendant b) Declaration that landed property numbered B314/18 situate at Bubiashie Accra is not the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant by virtue of the Plaintiffs permanent relocation from the said property. c) An Order requiring the Plaintiff, her children and tenants to vacate the said property and give vacant possession to the 4th Defendant. At the close of the Pleadings the following issues were set down for determination. a) Whether or not the Plaintiff is the lawful wife of the 1st defendant. b) Whether or not House Number B314/18 Bubiashie is a matrimonial home. c) Whether or not the 1st Defendant, the deserted husband can sell the matrimonial home and throw out the plaintiff. d) Whether or not the Plaintiff has right and share in the matrimonial home  e) Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to her claim f) Whether or not the building in question  is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. g) Whether or not the 1st defendant has given the 2nd and 3rd defendants authority to sell the said house. h) Whether or not the 1st Defendant left the house as a result of ill treatment by the Plaintiff. i) Whether or not the 1st Defendants have as a result of the Power Attorney sold the house out. j) Whether or not the purported sale by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the 4th Defendant is null and void. k) Whether or not the 4th Defendant is entitled to an Order to compel the Plaintiff and her Children to vacate House Number 314/18 Bubiashie Accra for the occupation of the 4th Defendant After hearing the evidence of the parties, and going through the pleadings, some of the issues set down for resolution cannot be said to be contested issues at all. There is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.  The evidence of the Plaintiff and that of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants establish the fact that until the 1st Defendant left the house in dispute, that house was the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. Issues ‘C’ is however a bane of contention between the parties.  The Plaintiffs evidence is that when she married, she was sent to this house.  She met another wife of the 1st  
P a g e | 4  
Defendant in the house.  There was a quarrel between the Plaintiff and her rival.  She therefore left the house and rented a room elsewhere.  Her husband, the 1st defendant begged her and she went back to the in dispute. The 1st Defendants evidence is that he built the house to completion before she married the plaintiff.  That his other wives were staying in the house.  That because of jealousy he the 1st Defendant decided to rent a room for the Plaintiff outside the house.  Counsel for the Plaintiff admitted that at the time that the Plaintiff was married to other wives of the 1st defendant were living on the land, but in constructed zinc house.  The defendant however denied this and insisted that he had completed the house before he married the plaintiff.  From Plaintiffs own evidence, the Cross examination of the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiffs counsel plus the evidence of 2nd Defendant, who said he was, 23 years old before his father married the plaintiff, I hold that house number B314/18 Bubiashie had been acquired by the 1st Defendant before the Plaintiff was married. The Plaintiffs evidence is that she assisted the 1st Defendant to improve the house to its present state.  The 1st Defendant before Plaintiff was married. The Plaintiffs evidence is that she assisted the 1st Defendant to improve the house to its present state.  The 1st Defendant denied this, but assuming that the Plaintiff even assisted in improving the house, would this assistance turn the house to a joint property, especially as the 1st Defendant had many wives at that time. Until the 1992 constitution came into force, the customary rule or law was that “If a married woman assist her husband to acquire property, that property will not be a joint property of the married couples, but remains the property of the man. This was one of the decisions in the case of Adjabeng vrs. Kwabla (1960) GLR 32 where Ollunna J. as he then was held at page 41 as follows: “By customary law, where a Son or a ward works with his father or guardian and out of the proceeds of that joint labour the father or guardian acquired property, the Son or ward does not become joint owner of that property with the father or guardian…………… Similarly by customary law where a Son or a ward assists his father or guardian with money and the father or guardian uses that money, or that money together with other monies of his own, to acquire property, the Son or ward does not become joint owner with the father, or guardian of the property so acquired.  Then in Abebreseh Vrs. Kaah and others(1976)2 GLR 46, Sarkodee J. referred to the dictum of Ollennu J. in Adjabeng Vrs. Kwabla, and held at page 52 as follows: ‘That rule referring to the dictum of Ollennu above quoted) takes its root from a fundamental principle of the customary law that a Son or a wife is a dependent of a husband and that family life requires, indeed it is a responsibility, that a Son should assist  
P a g e | 5  
his father and wife should work with or for her husband and the property acquired with such assistance is the individual property of the man. The above statement is also contained in the Judgment of Ollenu J. as he then was in Quartey Vrs. Martey (1959) GLR 377 at page 380. However I am aware that the Courts have moved away from the customary law principle above stated and leaned toward declaring property acquired by married couples during the pendency of their marriage as joint property.  This was the conclusion in Abebrese Vrs. Kaah (supra) Achiampong Vrs. Achiampong (1982-83)2 GLR1017 C.A. and Quartson vrs. Quartson (2012)2SC GLR 1077. In this case, however the evidence is that the house had been completed before the Plaintiff was married and met some wives in the house.  The house in dispute is therefore the self acquired property of the 1st defendant.  The only interest of the Plaintiff is the right to reside in it as her matrimonial home. The next issue to be resolved is should this house continue to be the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff, even though her husband has relocated to his hometown in Togo The 1st defendants case is that he is advanced in age but his wife being the Plaintiff and his adult children by the Plaintiff, with whom he was sick for about 3 years and the Plaintiff who lived in the same house but in separate rooms never asked of him, nor cared for him. The 2nd Defendant gave evidence that “his father told him about the ill treatment being meted out to him by the Plaintiff.  The 3rd defendant gave evidence that he used to visit his father regularly when he was in Accra.  On one of his visits, he entered his room and noticed that there was a stench.  The 1st defendant was then sleeping on one of his chairs in the sitting room.  He woked him up and noticed that he had defecated and urinated in the room.  Where he, the 3rd defendant inquired as to why he was in that condition, the 1st defendant told him that he had virtually been abandoned. At that time, the Plaintiff and some of her children were staying in the house with their wives. He the 3rd defendant arraigned for an outsider to come and clean up the place.  Counsel for the Plaintiff did not Cross examine the 3rd defendant on his evidence on the state that he met his father, the 1st defendant.  Since this evidence was not challenged, it meant the Plaintiff accepts that the evidence is true as held in Fori Vrs. Ayirebi and others (1966) GLR 627 holding 6 and in Hammond Vrs. Aminah and Another (1991) 1 GLR 89.  Strictly speaking since the house is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant, he does not need consent or permission of the Plaintiff to sell.  However since that house had become the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff and other wives of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant is under an obligation to give the Plaintiff a new matrimonial  
P a g e | 6  
home. The 1st defendants case is that for a very long time, the Plaintiff had deserted him, though the Plaintiff lived in a separate room in the same house with the 1st defendant.  According to the 1st Defendant as well as the 2nd and 3rd defendants, when the 1st defendant decided to relocate to Togo his home country he informed the Plaintiff and asked her to go with him, but the Plaintiff declined.  Having declined to go to Togo with the 1st defendant it does not lye in the mouth of Plaintiff to say that as a wife of the 1st defendant, she has the right to live in this house, so it cannot be sold without her consent.  Even if the 1st defendant were to remain in Ghana, with the Plaintiff being his wife, the 1st defendant could still sell the house since it is his own house.  The 1st defendant can change the matrimonial home by renting a place. In this case, the evidence shows that the 1st defendant has accommodation in Togoville, in Togo and intend to use part of the proceeds from the sale of the house in dispute, to renovate the house in Togo.  The import of this evidence is that the 1st defendant has relocated his matrimonial home to Togoville, in the Republic of Togo.  As a wife of the 1st Defendant the Plaintiff can live in this new matrimonial home in Togoville. The house in dispute is therefore no longer the matrimonial home of the Plaintiff and 1st defendant. The 1st defendant and the 2nd and 3rd defendants led evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff and her children who lived in the house in dispute are not responsible.  Apart from the fact that they did not take care of the 1st Defendant, they even misused the income from the house in dispute and did not account to 1st defendant.  Even though a child has no legal obligation to take care of his or her father, there is a moral obligation for a child to take care of his or her parents when such parents are sick or advanced in age. In the same manner a parent has no legal obligation to provide accommodation to his adult children.  Since there is no evidence before me that some of the children of the Plaintiff with the 1st defendants are infants, the Plaintiff can not prevent the sale of the house on the grounds that she and the children who lived in the house will be rendered homeless. I therefore hold that the sale of the house, which is said to have been concluded, is proper” If the Plaintiff intend to continue with her marriage to the 1st defendant then she should be ready to move to Togo to live with her husband. In a similar case, the facts of which are as in this suit, a man with two wives in    Takoradi decided to go back to his hometown in Saltpond when he was retired as a result of ill health.  The 2nd wife, who also hailed from saltpond as the man, refuse to relocate with him.  The man then sold his estate house that had been provided for the 2nd wife. The purchaser thereafter instituted ejection proceedings in the district court, Takoradi.            
P a g e | 7  
The 2nd wife put up a defence that since she was a lawful wife of the seller of the house and the house had been sold without her knowledge and consent, the sale is null and void. The district court, gave Judgment for the purchase.  The wife appealed to the High Court Sekondi.  The high Court reversed the Judgment of the District Court on the grounds that since the appellant was a lawful wife of the seller of the house, and the house being her matrimonial home, her husband could not sell the house without the consent of his wife. The purchaser went on appeal against the Judgment of the High Court which was presided over by Essilfie Bondzie J. as he then was to the court of appeal. In the Court of Appeal the case had the following particulars Civil Appeal N0 16/92 Grace Koomson & Anor. ……………….. Defendants/Appellant/Respondents  Vrs. Grrace Kodjo and Anr. ……………….. Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants On 28th day of April 1994, the Court of appeal presided over by G.L. Lamptey E.D.K.  Adjabeng and A.A. Forster gave judgment for the Plaintiffs, Respondents Appellants in the following ward. Judgment read.  The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the High Court dated 7th August 1889 is set aside.  The judgment of the District Court Grade 1 is hereby affirmed. ORDERS:- If the costs awarded in the High Court had been paid the same should be refunded.  The orders made by the District Court Grade 1 are hereby affirmed we make no order as to costs in this Court” I have tried to secure a copy of the full Judgment, but to no avail except what ha been above stated.  Relating above decided case with the one before me,  it is my holdings that the sale of the house Number B314/18 Bubiashie, which was written as Bubuashie is proper. The 4th defendant gave evidence that when she decided to purchase the house, she visited the said house on two occasions and spoke to the Plaintiff alone, and the Plaintiff is alleged to have confirmed that the house belonged to the 1st defendant and that the Plaintiff was the wife of the 1st defendant.  On the 2nd occasion, the 4th Defendant spoke to the Plaintiff and one of his Sons, and they confirmed that the house belonged to the 1st defendant, and that he wanted to sell. The 4th Defendant was not Cross Examined on this evidence.  Since the Plaintiff and her Son know that the 1st defendant intended selling the house and the 4th Defendant had expressed interest in buying the said house and the Plaintiff and her Son have been staying in the house as licensees of the 1st defendant, their license was revoked on the  
P a g e | 8  
sale of the said house.  There is also evidence before the court that in June 2012 the Plaintiff was informed by a letter that the Plaintiff should vacate from the house.  One may ask, since the Plaintiff was then married to the 1st defendant, why was the Plaintiff asked to vacate?  The answer may be found in the evidence of the defendants.  According to the 1st Defendant he went to live in Togoville about four years ago.  This evidence was given on 14th May 2015.  If four years is taken from 2015, it meant the 1st Defendant left Ghana in 2011.  Again the 1st defendant gave evidence that he and the Plaintiff stopped as husband and wife a long time ago.  Since the 1st Defendant had moved to Togoville and want money to renovate the house in Togo so that the Plaintiff and her children may have a place to stay should they go to Togo, the 1st Defendant had the right to eject his wife from his house. The Plaintiff having been asked to vacate from the house as far back as June 2012, the 4th Defendant who has stepped into the position of the 1st defendant can take recovery of possession of the house that she has purchased. Before the Plaintiff ended her evidence in Chief, the Plaintiff said “my lord, I am the 1st defendants wife and he says we should vacate from the house that is why I came to Court” Since I have held that house Numbered B314/18 Bubiashie is the self acquired property of the 1st Defendant, and the 1st defendant has moved his matrimonial home to Togoville, in the Republic of the Togo, and has invited the Plaintiff to Togoville, the 1st defendants sale of the said house number B314/18 Bubuashie to the 4th Defendant is proper. I therefore dismiss the Plaintiffs reliefs and enter judgment for the 1st and 4th defendants as follows: a) House Number B314/18 Bubiashie, Accra was until its sale, the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. b) That with the relocation of the 1st defendant from house number B314/18 Bubiashie that house has ceased to be the Plaintiffs matrimonial home. c) The Plaintiff and all her children and tenants claiming through the Plaintiff and any of her children are to vacate the premises and give vacant possession to the 4th Defendant, the Purchaser. No Order as to cost.         (SGD)        JUSTICE S. H. OCRAN          JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT  
P a g e | 9    