Dioggban Vrs Nankab [2023] GHADC 426 (9 March 2023)

IN THE FAMILY TRIBUNAL SITTING AT NALERIGU ON THURSDAY 9TH MARCH 2023 JAKPERIK DIOGGBAN APPLICANT SUIT NO. 49/22 V 1. KOMBAT PETER NANKAB RESPONDENTS 2. NANKAB PATIENCE YENNUMI GONGNIA CORAM H/W SIMON KOFI BEDIAKO - CHAIRMAN IBRAHIM BUKARI - PANEL MEMBER FATI OSMAN – PANEL MEMBER (SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER) JUDGEMENT This is an application for custody of Liyialab Leslie Likurnan and Liyialib Romana Dampi by the Applicant herein. The children are the issues of the marriage between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent is the father of the 2nd Respondent. The Applicant filed the application on 3rd March 2022 claiming the following reliefs: i. ii. An order granting custody of the children of the marriage to the Applicant with reasonable access to the 2nd Respondent. Any other order(s) as the Tribunal deems fit. The 2nd Respondent in her response to the application of the Applicant, counterclaimed for the following reliefs: i. ii. iii. iv. An order granting custody of the issues of the marriage to the 2nd Respondent with reasonable access to the Applicant. An order directed at the Applicant to provide maintenance of GHS 4,000 per month for the children. An order directed at the Applicant to pay maintenance arrears to the 2nd Respondent from August 2016 to date. Any order as this Tribunal deems fit. On 16th August 2022, the court made an order striking out counterclaims two (2) and three (3) of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to an oral application made by Counsel for the 2nd Respondent to withdraw the same. BURDEN OF PROOF Below is a statement of the burden of proof that a party is required to discharge in civil cases to obtain judgement in their favour. Section 11(1) & (4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N. R. C. D 323) provides that: Section 11—Burden of Producing Evidence Defined. (1) For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means the obligation of a party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a ruling against him on the issue. (4) In other circumstances the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non- existence. Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N. R. C. D 323) states that: (1) For the purposes of this Act, the burden of persuasion means the obligation of a party to establish a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the tribunal of fact or the Court. (2) The burden of persuasion may require a party (b) to establish the existence or non-existence of a fact by a preponderance of the probabilities or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 12 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (N. R. C. D 323) provides that: Proof by a preponderance of probabilities 12(1) except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of persuasion requires proof by a preponderance of probabilities. “Preponderance of probabilities” means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the tribunal of facts or the court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence”. Aikins JSC. delivering the lead opinion in the case of Ababio v Akwasi 111 [1994-95] GBR at 774 stated that: “The general principle of law is that it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case that is, he must prove what he alleges. In other words, it is the party who raises in his pleadings an issue essential to the success of his case who assumes the burden of proving it. The burden only shifts to the defence to lead sufficient evidence to tip the scales in his favour when on a particular issue the plaintiff leads some evidence to prove his claim. If the defendant succeeds in doing this, he wins, if not he loses on this particular issue. In the case of Majolagbe V Larbi and Others [1959] GLR 190 at page 192 per Ollennu J. (as he then was) stated as follows: “Proof in law is the establishment of facts by proper legal means. Where a party makes an averment capable of proof in some positive way e.g. by producing documents, description of things, reference to other facts, instances, circumstances, and its averment is denied, he does not prove it by merely going into the witness box and repeating the averment on oath, or having it repeated on oath by its witness. He proves it by producing other evidence of facts and circumstances, from which the Court can be satisfied that what he avers is true.” CASE OF APPLICANT The Applicant testified by himself and called no witnesses. He testified that he is a senior lecturer at C. K Tedam University of Technology and Applied Science, Navrongo in the Upper East Region of Ghana. He further stated that the 1st Respondent is the maternal grandfather of the children, and the 2nd Respondent is the mother of the children in question. The case of the Applicant in summary is that he got married to the 2nd Respondent on 26th December 2011 at Assemblies of God Church, Najong No.1. The Applicant testified that he is the biological father of the two issues of the marriage namely Liyialab Leslie Likurnan and Liyialib Romana Dampi aged 8 years and 6 years respectively. Applicant avers that in 2016 he gained admission to study in Kenya for his PhD and the 2nd Respondent also got admission to study midwifery at the Tumu Midwifery Training School at Tumu and as a result, he and the 2nd Respondent agreed to put the children in the care of the 1st Respondent until they complete their respective studies. The Applicant stated that they further agreed that the 2nd Respondent after completion of her course will take custody of the children from the 1st Respondent but 2nd Respondent upon completion of her course in 2019 failed to take custody of the children from the 1st Respondent and so the children are still in the custody of the 1st Respondent. The Applicant avers that the marriage between himself and the 2nd Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation and since May 2018, they have not lived together as husband and wife. According to the Applicant he has been denied access to the children since 2018. He added that he has been denied access to the children by even talking to the children on phone. He stated that all his efforts to take custody of the children from the 1st Respondent or have access to the children has proved futile. According to the Applicant the 2nd Respondent does not have custody of the children as she lives and works at Yua and the children are still with the 1st Respondent in Najong No.1. 2nd Respondent only has access to them as and when she visits them at Najong No.1. CASE OF 1ST RESPONDENT The 1st Respondent’s case is that he is the father of the 2nd Respondent whilst the Applicant is his son-in- law. The 1st Respondent testified that in 2011 the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent got married under ordinance at Assemblies of God Church Najong No.1 and they cohabited in Navrongo thereafter. He stated that the marriage between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent has two (2) issues namely Liyialab Leslie Likurnan and Liyialib Romana Dampi aged 8 years and 6 years respectively. According to the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent informed him that, she had agreed with the Applicant to move the children to live with him since she had gained admission to further her education at Tumu Midwifery Training College. 1st Respondent stated further that a month after the 2nd Respondent left for school, the Applicant also left for Kenya to pursue his PhD. 1st Respondent testified that after he had taken the children and whilst the Applicant was still in Ghana, he never called nor visited the children. He stated that the Applicant when he arrived in Kenya called and informed him that he had arrived in Kenya. 1st Respondent added that, that was the only time the Applicant called and spoke with the children. According to the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent came home to visit the children periodically and called almost every day to check on them whilst she was in school. He testified that since the children came to live with him, the Applicant has visited them only four (4) times and on all occasions, no one prevented him from seeing or talking to the children. He avers that it was the 2nd Respondent who provided financial support to him to take care of the children while they lived with him. He further testified that the 2nd Respondent requested him to provide her a room in his house when she completed school since she was no longer cohabiting with Applicant. He stated that the 2nd Respondent moved to stay with them but when she was posted to work at Yua CHPS Compound, he and his wife continued to help in taking care of the children. The 1st Respondent also stated that the Applicant has not shown concern about the welfare of the children and that, the 2nd Respondent is the one who paid the bills anytime the children fell ill. 1st Respondent avers that the children have become used to the 2nd Respondent and that granting custody of the children to the Applicant will disrupt the progress that the children have made so far at home and in school. He concluded that it will be in the best interest of the children that custody of the children is not granted to the Applicant. CASE OF 2ND RESPONDENT The 2nd Respondent testified by herself and called no witness. She stated that the Applicant is her husband, and the 1st Respondent is her father. According to the 2nd Respondent she got married to the Applicant on 26th December 2011 at Najong No.1 under ordinance marriage and they subsequently cohabited in Navrongo. 2nd Respondent stated that she and the Applicant have two (2) children namely Liyialab Leslie Likurnan and Liyialib Romana Dampi aged 8 years and 6 years respectively. She avers that in 2014, she gained admission to study at Tumu Midwifery Training College and the Plaintiff vehemently opposed it because he could not take care of the children in her absence. According to 2nd Respondent, this led to her not following up on her study leave so she had to eventually decline the admission. According to the 2nd Respondent, in 2016 she gained admission into Tumu Midwifery Training College, but the Applicant did not want to allow her to go to the school because he could not live alone with the children and that he was also going to Kenya to study for his PhD. 2nd Respondent avers that the Applicant eventually agreed for her to go to the school on condition that the children would be sent to the parents of the 2nd Respondent at Najong No.1 for them to take care of the children whilst she was in school. She stated that she informed 1st Respondent about the decision between herself and the Applicant to bring the children to stay with him whilst she goes to school. 2nd Respondent avers that a month after she left for school the Applicant also travelled to Kenya in pursuit of his PhD. According to the 2nd Respondent, since the Applicant left for Kenya, she has been the only parent providing for the upkeep of the children which upkeep includes their school fees, health, entertainment, and clothing. She added that since 2016 the Applicant has never given her money for herself or the upkeep of the children and that all financial dealing with the Applicant was for the benefit of the Applicant. 2nd Respondent avers that whilst the Applicant was still in Kenya, their marriage faced some challenges but despite the challenges she still lived in their matrimonial home anytime she was on holidays. She told the court that when she completed school and went to their matrimonial home, she could not access the same as she found it locked and because of this, she had to eventually move to Najong No.1 to live with her parents and the children. According to 2nd Respondent, she has custody of the children since she lived with them in her father’s house on days she was not working. The 2nd Respondent concluded by stating that she has been transferred to Techiman where she has secured admission for the children in Bethel School Complex, which is one of the best schools in Techiman and prayed the court to maintain the status quo to ensure consistency in the development of the children as that would be in the best interest of the children. ANALYSIS OF FACT AND LAW Having considered thoroughly the case of each party, the following issue arises to be resolved: Which parent of the children is better suited to be granted custody of the children? Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition defines custody of a child as “the care, control, and maintenance of a child awarded by a court to a responsible adult. Custody involves legal custody (decision-making authority) and physical custody (caregiving authority), and an award of custody usually grants both rights.” The Applicant and the 2nd Respondent have both made a claim for custody of the issues of the marriage. Custody of the children has become necessary as the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent although they are still legally married, are currently separated, and do not live together as husband and wife. The burden of proof lies on the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent to prove respectively to the court on the balance of probabilities who deserves custody of the children. The applicable law in Ghana when it comes to custody of children is the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) specifically Sub-Part II of Act 560. Section 43 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) makes provisions for persons who can apply to the court for custody of a child. The section states that “A parent, family member or a person who is raising a child may apply to a family tribunal for custody of the child.” Therefore, the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent being the parents of the children in this matter are qualified in accordance with the law to apply for custody of the children. Section 45 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) stipulates that: (1) A Family Tribunal shall consider the best interest of the child and the importance of a young child being with his mother when making an order for custody or access.” (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (2) Subject to subsection (1) a Family Tribunal shall also consider – the age of the child; that it is preferable for a child to be with his parents except if his rights are persistently being abused by his parents; the views of the child if the views are independently given; that it is desirable to keep siblings together; the need for continuity in the care and control of the child; and (f) Any other matter that the Family Tribunal may consider relevant. The Applicant seeks custody of the children on the basis that the children at the time of his application were in the custody of the 1st Respondent and not the 2nd Respondent and as the biological father of the children, he has priority to the grant of custody of his children over the 1st Respondent. According to the Applicant the 2nd Respondent failed to take the children from 1st Respondent when she finished school as was agreed between the Applicant and 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent in her response to the application of the Applicant and her evidence-in-chief stated that she has custody of the children. This statement is buttressed by a statement of the 1st Respondent in his response to the application of the Applicant. He stated that at all material times custody of the children has been with 2nd Respondent and he was only providing care to the children in her absence. During cross-examination of the Applicant by counsel for respondents, the Applicant admitted that the 2nd Respondent has custody of the children which is contrary to the assertion he made in his evidence-in-chief. Based on this admission, the Applicant cannot impress upon the court to take custody of the children from the 1st Respondent and give the same to him. The matter of custody is therefore between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent who are the parents of the children. The Applicant in his quest to prove to the court that he deserves custody of the children, stated his willingness to take custody of the children and bring them up in Navrongo which is a place that offers more educational opportunities and a better life compared to Najong No.1 where the children were at the time of the application. He added that the welfare of the children will be better catered for by him than the Respondents. According to the Applicant he has been denied access to the children by the Respondents since 2018 and does not even get access to them by phone. Exhibit A series however shows that the Applicant at the very least, had access to the children by phone. Both 1st and 2nd Respondents stated that whenever the Applicant wanted to visit the children, he was given unfettered access to them and that since 2016, he has visited the children a total of four (4) times. The Applicant denied, in general, averments made by both 1st and 2nd Respondents in their respective responses to the Applicant’s application, but he did not specifically adduce any evidence to prove that he was indeed denied access to the children as he claims. In fact, under cross-examination, he made an admission that he has access to the children. He stated as follows: “The reason is they were in a school called Little Flower and at that place they were paying GHC5 a month. In December 2019, when I visited them and requested about the status of their school, the 1st respondent told me that that school had a problem and that they had built a new school that he intend to send them there. Then later when I came to visit the children, I was told by the 1st respondent that he has sent them to Accra. At that moment I did not know where they were.” The 2nd Respondent as has already been indicated elsewhere in this judgement opposed the grant of custody of the children to the Applicant and counterclaimed for custody to be granted to her. The 2nd Respondent stated that the Applicant never showed that he can take care of the children. According to the 2nd Respondent the Applicant is a lecturer and a busy man so it will not be in the interest of the children if custody of the children is given to him. To counter this averment, the Applicant tendered in evidence Exhibit E which is his lecturing timetable. Exhibit E clearly does not show that he is a busy man. The Applicant during cross-examination however admitted that he is a head of department and is assigned with other responsibilities from time to time although he did not state the exact responsibilities and how often he was required to take up such additional responsibilities. This however does not mean he is too busy to be given custody of the Children. 2nd Respondent told the court that their son Liyialab Leslie Likurnan had delayed speech, but the Applicant was not patient with him and subjected the child to physical abuse making the child fear him so much. 2nd Respondent went further to say that their son has never felt comfortable around the Applicant because of the way the Applicant treated the child when the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent were cohabiting. The content of Exhibit A1 appears to paint a different picture to the court. Exhibit A1 is a phone conversation between Applicant and Liyialab Leslie Likurnan. The conversation between them appears as any normal conversation between a father and child. It is safe to conclude from Exhibit A1 that Liyialab Leslie Likurnan was not afraid of his father. Exhibit 5 was tendered in evidence by the 2nd Respondent. Exhibit 5 is a WhatsApp chat between the 2nd Respondent and the Applicant and in this chat, the 2nd Respondent sent to the Applicant on 24th February 2018 this message; “Leslie said you should call him”. The question is, will a child who is afraid of his father request for his father to call him? Certainly not. Exhibit A2 is also a telephone conversation between Applicant and Liyialib Romana Dampi which is also a normal conversation between a father and a child. The content of both Exhibit A1 and A2 does not show that the children are afraid of the Applicant, or they do not have a cordial relationship with him. The 2nd Respondent’s attempt to whittle down the weight of Exhibit A1 and A2 cannot be accepted by the court. The 2nd Respondent testified that the Applicant denied paternity of Liyialib Romana Dampi and that he openly did so to her parents therefore it will not be in the interest of the child if custody of her is given to Applicant. The 1st Respondent confirmed this averment of the 2nd Respondent in his response to the application of the Applicant and in his evidence-inchief. The Applicant however merely denied that he ever denied paternity of Liyialib Romana Dampi. He did not adduce any evidence to back up this denial. Mere denial of an averment is not sufficient, particularly where the party making the averment has given some evidence in proof of the same. In the case of Hilodjie v. George (2005-2006) SCGLR 974. Georgina Woode CJ stated that “In any action, cause or matter, a party who disputes an issue does not simply rest the case on formal denials either made in examination-in-chief or “put” or “suggested” to a witness in cross- examination. If the opponent does not admit those suggestions, then he or she is deemed to have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case on the disputed fact, and the evidentiary burden then shifts on to that party to prove contrary facts if he or she is desirous of avoiding a ruling against him or her on that issue.” To prove to the court that she deserves custody of the children over the Applicant, the 2nd Respondent informed the court that she has custody of the children and that she took custody of them when she finished school and moved to live with his parents and the children in Najong No.1. She stated that she had to move back to live with her parents and the children at Najong No. 1 because the applicant did not allow her into their matrimonial home. She told the court that whenever she went to her station at Yua, her parents took care of the children. She testified that since the Applicant left for school, she has been the one taking care of the children’s school fees, health, entertainment, and clothing. To buttress this, she tendered in evidence Exhibit 2 series and Exhibit 2A which consists of receipts of the school fees of the children issued by Lady Miranda Academy at Binde in the North-East Region of Ghana. The 1st Respondent told the court that it was the 2nd Respondent who provided him with all the financial support to take care of the children whilst they lived with him. However, when he was cross-examined on this by counsel for Applicant, he admitted that he does not know if it was the Applicant who gave the 2nd Respondent money for the maintenance of the children. The Applicant testified that before leaving for Kenya, he made provision for the maintenance of the family, and he also gave his ATM card to the 2nd Respondent so that she can have access to his bank account including his salary for the purposes of maintaining the children. According to the Applicant, the 2nd Respondent had access to about GHS 41,106.86 in his bank account from 1st November 2016 to 28th February 2018. The Applicant tendered in evidence Exhibit C to prove this averment to the court. Despite this averment, the Applicant did not tell the court how much the 2nd Respondent was to draw from his account every month as maintenance for the children. From an objective point of view, one will think, this would have been decided between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent admitted in her evidence-in-chief that the Applicant gave his ATM card to her to draw his salary every month with instructions on how she should disburse the same. By this averment, the 2nd Respondent means the ATM card was not given to her by the Applicant for the purposes of drawing money from the account of the Applicant to maintain the children. According to the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant instructed her to pay an amount of GHS 1,000 monthly to his colleagues as his ‘susu’ contribution. This instruction to pay the susu contribution was admitted by the Applicant during cross-examination. 2nd Respondent stated that the Applicant instructed her to disburse the rest of the money in favour of Applicant’s mother and siblings. She sort to rely on Exhibit 4B to prove the disbursement of the money, however, the court cannot rely on a document that appears to have been created by the 2nd Respondent as an afterthought to account for monies she disbursed years ago. Exhibit 4B is self-serving and the court will not consider such evidence. The 2nd Respondent could not tell the court, the amount of money she was disbursing to the mother and siblings of the Applicant monthly. She told the court that the amount varied from time to time. According to the 2nd Respondent, one of the instructions given to her in respect of the ATM by the Applicant was for her to work on their uncompleted building. The Applicant admitted during cross-examination that the 2nd Respondent was supervising work on their uncompleted building at the time he left for Kenya. This means some of the money drawn from the account of the Applicant would have been used to continue the building. 2nd Respondent in her evidence-in-chief stated that the Applicant had so many creditors to pay every month that the money in his account was not enough, she had to top up with her money to disburse to the Applicant’s brother and mother. 2nd Respondent did not give particulars of the creditors the Applicant owed and how much she was paying to each of them monthly. She tendered in evidence Exhibit 5 to prove that the Applicant asked her to give part of her salary to his mother and siblings and survive on only GHS 300. This piece of evidence was not successfully refuted by the Applicant. The court is of the view that the Applicant gave his ATM card to the 2nd Respondent with specific instructions on what to do considering the admissions he made during the trial. However, he failed to specify all these instructions to the court save that he gave his ATM card to the 2nd Respondent for the purposes of maintenance. The fact that the Applicant gave his ATM card to the 2nd Respondent and by extension access to his money does not necessarily mean that the 2nd Respondent had the blessing of the Applicant to do as she pleased with the money in the account or take any amount, she requires to maintain the children and herself. This act of the Applicant does not lead to a conclusive presumption that he made provision for the maintenance of the children since August 2016. At best it leads to a rebuttable presumption which was rebutted when the 2nd Respondent led evidence to show some of the instructions the Applicant gave to her in respect of the use of his ATM card. The burden of proof then shifted on to the Applicant to adduce evidence to convince the court otherwise, which burden the Applicant failed to discharge. The Applicant avers that he gave an amount of money to the 2nd Respondent which amount was invested by the 2nd Respondent, and she realised an amount of GHS 25,286.00 from the investment as of 7th June 2018. According to the Applicant, he later instructed the 2nd Respondent to use the same to maintain the children monthly. The 2nd Respondent admitted that on the instructions of the Applicant, she invested money belonging to the Applicant in two tranches with Gold Coast Security. She stated that in 2018, the Applicant instructed her to stop one of the tranches of investment which she did. According to her on 8th May 2018, an amount of GHS 17,911.00 was paid into the bank account of the Applicant as instructed. 2nd Respondent tendered in evidence Exhibit 7 and 8 to prove the said tranche of investment and the payment into the bank account of the Applicant which exhibits were not challenged with contrary evidence by Applicant. The 2nd Respondent further stated that the Applicant instructed her to go and fill out the required forms to ensure that the second tranche is paid to the Applicant’s personal account when it matures. This is clearly proved by the content of Exhibit 9 which is a transcribed telephone conversation between Applicant and 2nd Respondent. According to the 2nd Respondent, due to some challenges that Gold Coast Security faced, they could not pay the money when it matured. She states that the money was subsequently paid to her on 2nd March 2021. She received a cheque for GHS 27,083.90. She avers that the Applicant owed her and her mother money and therefore she used that amount to offset the debt. The court is not here to discuss whether the Applicant owed the 2nd Respondent and her parents money. What is relevant to the court is whether the Applicant gave instruction to the 2nd Respondent to use the said amount of money to maintain the children. On the face of all the evidence available to the court, the court finds that the Applicant did not give instructions to the 2nd Respondent to use the said amount of money to maintain the children. Even if he did, he could not prove this averment to the court. From the content of Exhibit 11 series which is a series of WhatsApp chats between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent, the Applicant demanded that the 2nd Respondent pays him an amount of GHS 26,286 which he made the 2nd Respondent to invest in goldfund which has been paid to 2nd Respondent. This is the same money the Applicant referred to in paragraphs 13 and 32 of his witness statement. Even though the amount stated in his witness statement is GHS 25,286.00 the court believes they are one and the same since the date he claims the money was realised by 2nd Respondent in both instances is 7th June 2018. In paragraph 32 of the Applicant’s witness statement, he admits that he demanded the money from the 2nd Respondent who refused to give the same to him and so he instructed her to use the money to maintain the children monthly. This clearly shows that it was never his intention for that money to be used to maintain the children. The Applicant could not adduce any evidence to prove to the court that he maintained the children even after he had returned from Kenya. There is no evidence that the Applicant paid the school fees and medical bills of the children. On the issue of the 2nd Respondent moving the children to Techiman which was raised during cross- examination of the 2nd Respondent by counsel for Applicant, the Court gave no order to restrict the movement of the children from Najong No.1 and the Applicant failed to pray to the court to make such an order. The court after careful consideration of all the evidence on record hereby concludes that custody of the children, be given to the 2nd Respondent. The court in coming to this conclusion took into consideration the provisions of section 45 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) particularly sections 45(1), 45(2)(a), (d) and (e). Considering the ages of the children, the fact that the children currently live with the 2nd Respondent, the fact that the children have intermittently lived with the 2nd Respondent in the 1st Respondent’s house in Najong No.1 until recently when the 2nd Respondent moved them to Techiman, the fact that the Applicant has not lived with the children since 2016, the need to keep siblings together and the need for continuity in the care and control of the children, the court concludes that it will be in the best interest of the children to continue to live with the 2nd Respondent in accordance with section 2 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). This section provides as follows: 2. Welfare Principle (1) (2) The best interest of the child shall be paramount in a matter concerning a child. The best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration by any court, person, institution or other body in any matter concerned with a child. See Asem v Asem [1968] GLR 1146. ORDERS The court in accordance with section 50(1) of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) ordered a social enquiry report to be prepared by a social welfare officer for consideration by the court before making its orders. The report was duly prepared and filed on 25th January 2023. The court in accordance with section 50(2) of Act 560 took into consideration the social enquiry report before making the orders below: a) CUSTODY & ACCESS The court hereby grants custody of the children to the 2nd Respondent until the children attain the age of maturity in accordance with Section 45 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). To ensure that the children enjoy a meaningful relationship with the Applicant, the children shall during school vacation live with the Applicant for the entire vacation period. The Applicant shall pick the children from the 2nd Respondent when the children go on school vacation and return them to the 2nd Respondent three (3) days prior to the school of the children being re-opened. The court further orders that the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent have the option to apply for a review of the order for custody of the children after two (2) years if any of the parties believe that the prevailing situation is not helping the welfare of the children. COST No orders as to cost. SGD SGD SGD H/W SIMON KOFI BEDIAKO IBRAHIM BUKARI FATI OSMAN MAGISTRATE (CHAIRMAN) PANEL MEMBER PANEL MEMBER APPEARANCES PAUL CHINATRA ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT. MABEL LARIBA AWUNI ESQ. HOLDING THE BRIEF OF IBRAHIM ISSIFU ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENTS. 16