KORMOR VRS CECILIA (A4/257/23) [2023] GHADC 1054 (28 December 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SOMANYA ON THURSDAY THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO. SUIT NO: A4/257/23

TETTEH STEPHEN KORMOR }

PETITIONER

VRS

ANNOR CECILIA }

RESPONDENT

PARTIES :

PRESENT

J U D G M E N T The Petitioner commenced the instant action praying the court for the dissolution of the ordinance marriage between him and the Respondent. The case of the Petitioner per his Witness Statement is that he is a clinical technologist and works with the Ghana Health Service whiles the Respondent is a teacher. They got married in September 2014 and the marriage has been blessed with a son by name Tetteh Kormor El- wonder Osieku. He stated that after some few months into the marriage misunderstandings crept into their relation and the Respondent kept complaining of every little thing that happened between them. He added that he woke up one night and saw the Respondent sitting beside him on the bed with a knife in her hand and when he questioned her as to why she was holding the knife the Respondent could not provide any response so he struggled with her and managed to collect the knife from her. He further stated that he saw the Respondent talking to a certain man by name T. T. Kodjonya who had been sending her love messages as well so he collected the phone from the Respondent and told T. T. Kodjonya on the line that the Respondent is a married woman and cut the call. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent started her degree programme at Valley View University in the year 2018 and each time she come home she would be having conversation on phone with men and

each time he questioned her the Respondent would respond that the said men were either her course mates or friends. He found out in the year 2019 that a particular number 0242464446 with the name Edmund had been calling her phone regularly in the morning, afternoon and evening so he questioned the Respondent about that and she said the said Edmund was the brother of the course mate. He further questioned the Respondent as to how the said course mate’s brother got her phone number and what he was looking for from her and go to the extent of calling her on phone after 9pm. The Respondent became angry which led to a quarrel. He later checked on the Respondent’s phone and found out that the said number called but a different name “Mayor” appeared and when he questioned the Respondent on same, she said Edmund is also called Mayor. He later found out that the said number called on several occasion without a name. On 31/12/2019 the Respondent was at school so he called and enquired from her as to whether she would attend the watch night service and she replied in the affirmative with the explanation that the church was just outside the school campus. The Petitioner stated that she found out later that the Respondent spent the night at Edmund’s place which the Respondent admitted upon enquiry. He further stated that on 26/5/2020 he found out that the Respondent had sent pornographic

videos to Edmund’s phone and when he questioned her on same it led to a quarrel. Furthermore, he stated that the Respondent’s hostile attitude towards him continued until the year 2021 when she packed her belongings and left the matrimonial home at a time that he (Petitioner) was at work. He added that the Respondent once came to his work place and insulted him in the presence of the security men and some patients at the hospital which caused a big disgrace to him especially when the said day was his birthday which was on 15/6/2021. He added that the Respondent had threatened on several occasion to poison him. In conclusion, he stated that there had been several attempts to resolve the matter but to no avail so he had given a bottle of schnapps to the Respondent’s father to signify his disinterest in the marriage. In the evidence of the Respondent she stated that she expressed her desire that the two of them would stay under one roof during the marriage but the Petitioner who was working at the Tamale Teaching Hospital at the time of the marriage, failed to take her to join him at Tamale. She added that the Petitioner initiates a conversation only when he needed to have sex and that he had not been having regular chats with her. She added that the Petitioner had refused to show her his work place and where he stays. She further stated that on one occasion she visited the

Petitioner at Tetteh Quarshie Hospital Akwapim-mampong and saw the dress of the Petitioner’s girlfriend in his wardrobe and when he questioned him on same he assaulted her. According to the Respondent, the two (2) of them had never stayed under one roof for even a week and that Petitioner visits her only on weekends. Section 2 of the Matrimonial causes Act 1971 (Act 367) provides that for the purpose of showing that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the Petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts: 2 (1) (b) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. (c) that the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition. (d) that the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two (2) years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition and the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce. (f) that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort been unable to reconcile their differences. The Petitioner stated that he had suffered physical, emotional and psychological abuse from the conduct exhibited by the Respondent and these made him to raise the question as to whether the respondent has been unable

to meet her expectations for entering into the marriage. The said conducts are expressed in the following Cross Examination of the Respondent by the Petitioner: Q. I questioned you about the phone number 024246446 and you told me the owner of the said number is Edmund who is your course mate’s brother. I did not tell you that. On another occasion I checked your phone and the same number 024246446 popped A. Q. up with the name Mayor. A. I have a friend by name Mayor. Q. On 26/5/2020 I woke up from sleep and saw a pornographic video of whites which you have sent to Edmund on your phone and I asked you why you sent same to Edmund when you had earlier told me that you had nothing to do with Edmund. That is not true. I sent the pornographic video to Somanya People. I am putting it to you that the said pornographic video is on Exhibit ‘A’ (Pen drive). That is true however I down loaded same from face book. A. Q. A. Others are that the Respondent slept in Edmund’s room on 31/12/2019 and threatened to poison the Petitioner. Also the Respondent went to the Petitioner’s work place on 15/6/2021 and insulted him in the presence of some security men and patients at the hospital which caused an embarrassment to the Petitioner especially when the said date was his birthday. It is appropriate to state that considering the conducts exhibited, the Petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live

with the Respondent. Also a further Cross Examination of the Respondent by the Petitioner revealed the following: Q. In the early part of the year 2021 you packed your belongings and left the matrimonial home without me sacking you. A. That is true however I told you before leaving. From the above it is clear that the Respondent deserted the Petitioner in the year 2021. It therefore follows that the parties have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of two (2) years. In addition a deduction from the Respondent’s Cross Petition is indicative of the fact that the Respondent has consented to the grant of the divorce. Paragraph 9 (b) of the Petitioner’s form and paragraph 29 of the Respondent’s response indicate that several attempts have been made with the aim to resolve the matter but to no avail. This means that both the Petitioner and the Respondent have been unable to reconcile their differences after diligent effort had been exerted It is my finding after considering the evidence adduced that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. In the circumstance, I declare the Ordinance marriage between TETTEH STEPHEN KORMOR herein referred to as the Petitioner and ANNOR CECILIA NAKUOR herein referred to as the Respondent, duly dissolved and make the following orders: 1. That the Petitioner shall pay an alimony of GH¢5,000.00 to the Respondent.

2. That custody of the child TETTEH-KORMOH EL-WONDER OSIEKU is granted to the Respondent with reasonable access to the Petitioner on school holidays (vacation).

3. The Petitioner shall pay GH¢300.00 per month as maintenance for the child (boy). (SGD) H/W MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO (MAGISTRATE) 28/12/2023 F. T. 6