SAMUEL BAIDOO (PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) vs. BEATRICE BAIDOO (RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT) [2019]DLSC7919

SAMUEL BAIDOO (PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT) vs. BEATRICE BAIDOO (R... [2019]DLSC7919

Date	2019-12-11
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION SUIT NO. J8/07/2020
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC7919

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

ERIC SENYO PONGO FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT.

DICK ANYADI FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT.

[2019]DLSC7919
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SAMUEL BAIDOO<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>BEATRICE BAIDOO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
MOTION SUIT NO. J8/07/2020&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 11TH DECEMBER,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
SENYO PONGO FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DICK
ANYADI FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

DOTSE
JSC (PRESIDING), APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, KOTEY JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE, JSC:-<o:p></o:p>By this application, the Respondent/Respondent/Respondent/Applicant,
hereafter referred to as the Applicant is seeking clarification of the judgment
of the Circuit Court, dated 31st day of October 2012, which the
parties compromised by settlement reached and filed in the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an affidavit sworn to by the Applicant in
support of this application which has been premised on portions of the Circuit
Court judgment referred to supra and this states as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“I further order that the Dansoman property be
valued and the Respondent be given twenty percent (20%) converted into cash, as
her contribution seeing as this has always been the intention of the Petitioner.”
Emphasis <o:p></o:p>The Applicant in further support of the
Application, deposed to an affidavit in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as follows:-<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “That aggrieved by the judgment of the
Circuit Court, the Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeal which unanimously
dismissed the appeal as being without merit. Copy of the judgment of the Court
of Appeal is hereto attached and marked Exhibit “C”.<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the Petitioner further appealed
against the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
when the appeal got to the Supreme Court, it ended up in the parties agreeing
and signing the Terms of Settlement which was filed on 16th
February, 2018. Copy of the said Terms of Settlement is attached and marked
“Exhibit D”. Emphasis<o:p></o:p>The Applicant has further deposed to the fact
that, the valuation of the property cannot be done by the Architectural and Engineering
Services Corporation (AESL) because the
Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant/Respondent, hereafter referred to as the
Respondent has unilaterally altered the property from a Hostel to a fully
operational medical center.<o:p></o:p>The Applicant complains that it is this conduct of
the Respondent that has necessitated the request for this application.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent has opposed the application. In
paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Respondent’s affidavit in opposition, the Respondent
deposed to as follows:-<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
when I file</main>