Man “Loses House” In Divorce Settlement
By Dickson Jere
A couple divorced in May 2021.
Thereafter, the Court had to determine the property settlement, which was done in March 2022. The Court granted the ex-wife a property in Salama Park, which was a matrimonial house, among other things.
However, when the woman tried to take possession of the house, she was told that the ex-husband did not own the house. Simply, that the Certificate of Deeds were in the name of his mother and therefore it was not his house.
This dispute went back to Court for determination. The woman argued that the house was bought in 2019 while the two were married and it was contemplated that it will be a family house. The two were waiting for the issuance of title deeds when they filed for divorce in 2020, she said.
On the other hand, the man insisted that the house belonged to his mother and produced title deeds to buttress his position, that showed that she was owner.
The High Court had to make a determination as to whether this house was matrimonial house which should be subject of property settlement after divorce despite being registered in the man’s mother.
“I am persuaded by the Respondent (wife) that the Petitioner (husband) had acquired the property for the benefit of the family as per Contract of Sale,” the Judge said, making reference to the Contract that had the husband name.
The Judge said the property settlement proceedings took place in April 2021 and that the man did not raise the issue of ownership of the house at that stage.
“It is only after the property settlement had been concluded and the matter was pending Judgement that the title is issued in the Petitioner’s mother on 2nd June, 2021,” the Judge observed.
The Judge said the sequence of events showed a lack of clear explanation on how a property whose contract of sale was in the name of the man ended up being in the mother’s name.
“Rather it reveals that the title was processed in the mother’s name to frustrate the enforcement of the property settlement,” the Court said.
“Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear that the Petitioner registered title in the name of his mother as an afterthought and as a means of ensuring that the matrimonial house escapes consideration during property settlement,” the Judge further said.
The Court ordered that the house was matrimonial property, which was subject for settlement after divorce.
“In conclusion, I find that the matrimonial home is family property therefore subject to property settlement,” the Judge said.
“Lastly, I hereby vest the matrimonial property….(Plot number withheld) and motor vehicle Mercedes Benz C Class….(Reg Number withheld) in the name of the Respondent,” the Court ruled.
Case citation – Twinjika v Twinjika – 2020/HP/D/F/299 and Judgment delivered on 20th March, 2025.
Interesting jurisprudence. Ordinarily, the mother should have been joined and heard in these proceedings to explain how she acquired the property in the first place. It is trite in law that one cannot be adversely affected by the Order of court without being heard.