HIGH COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 1962
BEFORE: OLLENNU J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
INTERPLEADER action by a wife in respect of household articles seized in execution.
COUNSEL
Bredu-Pabi for the claimant.
T. K. Agadzie for the plaintiffs-judgment-creditors.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
The claimant has raised objection to the attachment of the chattels, subject-matter of this claim, on the grounds that they are her property which she uses in common with the execution-debtor her husband, and that whatever interest the husband might have in them those interests are not such as could in law be attached in execution against him. The goods consist of household furniture and a car.
The general presumption of law is that household furniture of the description of that in this claim, i.e. chairs, tables, drinking glasses and the like, used by a married couple in the matrimonial home belong to the
[p.280] of [1962] 1 GLR 279
married couple in common, but are under the direct control of the house-wife who naturally would require them. for the proper administration and the efficient management of the home. The interest which either the wife or the husband has in such a property is indivisible’ it is an incident to their conjugal relationship, and is of the same nature and species as the interest which a member of a family has in family property. The sale of such an interest would lead to absurdities. For example, it would mean that if they were attachable, then if the right title and interest of a husband in furniture, bed, chairs, tables, etc., are sold in execution and purchased by a man, that male purchaser would acquire a right of the husband to use the bed, etc., in common with the wife of the execution-debtor in the matrimonial home. That would make the law ridiculous.
Of course, the presumption can be rebutted by evidence that a particular piece of furniture is the separate individual property of the wife or the husband, used exclusively by him or her in the home. The onus is upon the execution-creditor to rebut that presumption.
In this suit the execution-creditors have made no attempt to produce any rebutting evidence. Counsel submitted however that the belief which the execution-creditors said they had that the goods seized belonged to the execution-debtor should weigh with the court and that the court should accept and act upon that evidence and dismiss the inter- pleader suit. This submission cannot bear examination.
As far as the car is concerned the documents in respect of it, exhibit A, prove conclusively that it is the separate property of the claimant.
In the circumstances the claim must succeed. The claim is allowed; it is ordered that the goods upon which execution has levied should be released from attachment forthwith. The claimant will have her costs fixed at 25 guineas inclusive.
DECISION
Claim allowed.
