Although
the appellant, in her Notice of Appeal, had raised five grounds of appeal, at
the hearing of this matter, counsel for the appellant confined himself to two
grounds. These are, firstly, that the court a quo misdirected itself in
awarding a property known as the Aspen Flat to the respondent as compensation
for his half share in the Knightsbridge account amounting to 10,000 pound
sterling, and, secondly, that the court a quo misdirected itself in awarding a
non-existent property referred to as Des Vegas to the appellant.
As
regards to the property known as the Aspen Flat, it is clear from the record
that at the trial of this matter, the appellant sought to mislead the court in
two respects. Firstly, the appellant denied that the Knightsbridge account was
a joint account. The court a quo correctly found that the account was a
joint account - a fact now conceded before this court. Secondly, the
appellant prevaricated on whether the funds in the account still
existed. The court was of the view that the appellant had sought to place
the funds beyond the reach of the respondent and that an order directing her to
pay to the respondent half of the funds held in the account would have proved
difficult to implement. It was for this reason that the court, in the
exercise of its discretion, awarded the Aspen Flat to the respondent.
On these facts, I am
satisfied that there was no misdirection on the part of the trial court.
It is
true that the court could have made an order, as suggested by counsel for the
appellant, directing the appellant to pay to the respondent half of the sum of
money held in the account. In view of the difficulties surrounding the
enforcement of such an order, the court, instead, opted to grant the Aspen Flat
to the respondent.
In these
circumstances, such a decision cannot be regarded as a misdirection. I am
satisfied that the court properly exercised its discretion and that this ground
of appeal must fail. I am also satisfied that the appellant cannot, at
this stage, offer to pay 10,000 pound sterling to the respondent so that she
can be awarded the Aspen Flat.
Turning
to the property known as Des Vegas, the court a quo was mindful of the
difficulties associated with the status of the property, and, in particular,
whether it was still possible for the property to be transferred to the
parties. The court a quo awarded to the appellant whatever rights may have
existed in respect of that property. Taking into account the fact that
money had indeed been paid for that property, the decision to award to the
appellant any rights that may have been still in existence cannot be said to be
a misdirection. In fact, what the court was saying was that the appellant
could pursue the matter if she so wished in order to exercise any rights or
cause of action that may have been in existence.
In
the result, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.