The case of Allicent Kelly-Lasisi vs. Jimoh Lasisi ([2016] JMSC Civ. 25) in the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica** involved a dispute over the ownership of a property located at 14a Lakehurst Drive, Palmer Heights, Kingston 8**. Allicent Kelly-Lasisi, the claimant, sought a declaration that she was entitled to half of this property, which she claimed was the family home during her marriage to Jimoh Lasisi, the defendant.
Key Points:
- Claimant’s Argument: The claimant argued that she lived in the property for a substantial period before and after the marriage and contributed financially to household expenses and property improvements. She claimed that this gave her a rightful claim to half of the property under the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act.
- Defendant’s Argument: The defendant contended that the property was purchased before the marriage without any financial contribution from the claimant. He argued that their marriage was of short duration, and the claimant did not contribute significantly to the acquisition or improvement of the property.
- Judge’s Decision:
- Duration of the Marriage: The judge determined that the marriage was indeed of short duration, ending effectively in September 2013, less than a year after it began. This was a key factor in deciding against the application of the equal share rule.
- Contributions to the Property: The court found that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence of significant financial or non-financial contributions to the property. The claimant’s financial contributions were limited, and the court did not find credible evidence of other contributions such as renovations or household maintenance that would justify a half-share claim.
- Application of the Law: The court noted that while the Property (Rights of Spouses) Act generally entitles spouses to equal shares of the family home, this can be varied if it would be unreasonable or unjust. Given that the property was owned by the defendant before the marriage and considering the short duration of the marriage, the court found it unreasonable to award the claimant a half-share of the property.
Final Outcome:
The judge concluded that it would be unjust to apply the equal share rule in this case and did not grant the claimant half of the property. The court’s decision was based on the short duration of the marriage, the pre-existing ownership of the property by the defendant, and the limited contributions made by the claimant.
Source: Supreme Court of Jamaica
Here is another court case involving a property dispute in Jamaica