Couple’s names on indenture presume joint ownership – Court orders in void marriage case

The Court of Appeal has upheld a Circuit Court ruling ordering a former couple whose marriage was declared null and void to share equally the proceeds from the sale of a residential property at Community 25, Tema.

The Court held that although the parties' marriage was legally invalid, the inclusion of both their names in the property's indenture constituted prima facie evidence of joint ownership, which could only be displaced by sufficient evidence to the contrary.

A three-member panel comprising Justices Eric Kyei Baffour, Lydia Osei Marfo and Dr Richmond Osei Hwere dismissed an appeal by Mr Churchill Duse-Anthony challenging the Circuit Court's decision.

The appellate court consequently affirmed the order for House No. A1, Emefs Estate, Community 25, Tema, to be valued and sold, with the proceeds shared equally between the parties.

Background

The parties met in the United Kingdom in 2003 and later relocated to Ghana, where they purported to contract a customary marriage on November 20, 2007, which was subsequently registered.

However, it emerged that Mrs Anthony was still legally married to another man at the time, rendering her subsequent marriage to Mr Duse-Anthony null and void.

During their relationship, the couple lived together in a residential property at Emefs Estate, Community 25, Tema.

Following the breakdown of the relationship, a dispute arose over ownership of the property.

Mrs Anthony maintained that the house belonged to both parties, while Mr Duse-Anthony insisted that he had acquired it entirely with his own funds.

He argued that the mere inclusion of Mrs Anthony's name in the indenture did not confer any beneficial ownership interest on her.

The Circuit Court disagreed and ordered that the property be valued, sold and the proceeds divided equally between them.

Mr Duse-Anthony subsequently appealed against the decision.

Both Names on Indenture Presume Joint Ownership

In resolving the dispute, the Court of Appeal distinguished between the division of matrimonial property following a divorce and the determination of property rights where a marriage has been declared null and void.

The Court explained that the principles governing the distribution of matrimonial property upon divorce do not automatically apply to a void marriage.

Instead, the parties' respective rights must be determined by their established legal or equitable interests, consistent with section 21(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367).

The judges found that the indenture covering the disputed property expressly named both Mr Duse-Anthony and Mrs Anthony as sub-lessees.

According to the Court, this constituted prima facie evidence of joint legal and beneficial ownership.

The Court explained that although such evidence creates a rebuttable presumption of joint ownership, a person claiming exclusive beneficial ownership must produce sufficient evidence to establish that the other person's name was included without any intention of conferring an ownership interest.

In the present case, Mr Duse-Anthony failed to establish that he had exclusively financed the acquisition of the property or that Mrs Anthony held her interest merely on his behalf.

The judges observed that he had not produced convincing documentary evidence, including receipts, invoices or confirmation from the property developer, to support his claim.

His assertions of sole ownership were therefore insufficient to defeat the presumption arising from the indenture.

Court Rejects Residence Permit Explanation

The Court also rejected Mr Duse-Anthony's explanation that Mrs Anthony's name had been included in the property documents solely to facilitate her acquisition of a residence permit.

It found the explanation unconvincing and inconsistent with aspects of the evidence presented during the trial.

The judges further observed that the explanation suggested an attempt to mislead public authorities, a position contrary to public policy.

The Court also considered Mr Duse-Anthony's conduct in allowing Mrs Anthony's name to appear in the indenture and permitting her to occupy and exercise ownership rights over the property for several years.

Applying the principle of estoppel by conduct under sections 26 and 38(1) of the Evidence Act, the Court held that he could not subsequently deny the ownership interest he had represented Mrs Anthony as possessing.

Secret Recording Violated Constitutional Right to Privacy

In a separate issue, the Court examined a secretly recorded private conversation which Mr Duse-Anthony sought to rely upon in support of his claim.

The Court held that the recording, made without Mrs Anthony's consent, violated her constitutional right to privacy under article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution.

It further explained that the admission of the recording and its transcript during the trial without objection did not prevent the trial court from subsequently disregarding the evidence on grounds of inadmissibility.

Relying on sections 8 and 61 of the Evidence Act, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's authority to exclude or disregard evidence found to be inadmissible.

Appeal Dismissed, Equal Sharing Order Upheld

The Court of Appeal also rejected a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal.

It held that Mr Duse-Anthony's complaint against the trial judge's finding of joint acquisition concerned a finding of fact rather than a question of law.

Having considered the evidence and the grounds of appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Circuit Court's finding that the property was jointly owned.

It upheld the order for the house to be valued and sold, with the proceeds shared equally between the parties.

Under the order, Mrs Anthony is to be given the first opportunity to purchase the property within three months of its valuation, while both parties are to bear the valuation costs equally.

The decree declaring the marriage null and void was left undisturbed.

Read full case on Dennislaw.