AMANKWAH VRS AMANKWAH (C5/284/2023) [2023] GHACC 707 (30 November 2023)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD AT CIRCUIT COURT ‘2’, ACCRA ON THURSDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS HONOUR ISAAC ADDO, THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO.: C5/284/2023 ------- PETITIONER ------- RESPONDENT CECILIA AMANKWAH 10 Asafoatse Odwen Street (GA-031-2709) Accra VRS KWABENA AMANKWAH 3916 Hedgemeade Court White Plains, MD 20695 USA PETITIONER PRESENT RESPONDENT ABSENT ISAAC ANNAN RIVERSON, ESQ. FOR FOR THE PETITIONER PRESENT JUDGEMENT On the 12th May, 2023, the Petitioner duly obtained leave of the Court to serve the Notice of the Petition out of the jurisdiction. The Respondent was duly served on the 1st June, 2023, and refused to enter Appearance to the suit. On the 11th August, 2023, the Court set down the matter for trial. By an Amended Petition filed on the 24th October, 2023, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a. That the marriage celebrated between the parties at the Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints Church, Accra on the 17th December, 2010 be dissolved. b. An order directed at the Respondent to make adequate financial provision to settle the Petitioner. Cecilia Amankwah vrs Kwabena Amankwah c. Respondent to pay the legal fees of the Petitioner in this action. d. An order for the ownership of the property to be fully transferred to the Petitioner. Pursuant to Order 36 Rule 1(2)(a) of High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I 47), the Court heard the case of the Petitioner in the absence of the Respondent. A defaulting defendant takes the blame for failing to appear in Court to defend an action against him. In the case of Republic vrs High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra; Ex Parte State Housing Co. Ltd (No. 2) (Koranten-Amoako Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185, the venerable Chief Justice Wood CJ observed that if a party like the Defendant herein, who has been served with notices to appear in court to be heard, fails to attend court, he cannot later turn around and accuse the court of a breach of natural justice. See also Republic vrs High Court, (Human Rights Division), Accra, Ex parte Josephine Akita (Mancell-Egala & Attorney General Interested Parties) [2010] SCGLR 374 @ 384 per Brobbey JSC; Republic vrs Court of Appeal, Accra, Ex Parte East Dadekotopon Development Trust, Civil Motion No. J5/39/2015, dated 30th July 2015 and Baiden vrs Solomon [1963] GLR 488 at page 495. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER The parties got married under Ordinance on the 17th December, 2010 at The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, Accra. There are no issues of the marriage. Apart from the first few months after the marriage, the parties have not cohabited as husband and wife. The Petitioner is resident in the USA. The fact of the Respondent’s residence was discussed prior to the marriage and the Respondent assured Petitioner that he would subsequently make arrangement for the parties to either settle in Ghana or in the USA. That contrary to the assurances by the Respondent, he failed to relocate to Ghana nor make attempts for the Petitioner to join him in USA. The Petitioner continuously complained to the Respondent regarding his status as a permanent resident in USA because that was likely to affect their bonding and prospects of procreation. The Cecilia Amankwah vrs Kwabena Amankwah Respondent for a very long time has failed to visit Ghana regularly nor come and stay for longer periods. The Respondent reduced his once a year visit to once in two years without any reasonable explanation to the Petitioner. This unreasonable behaviour has deprived the Petitioner of the much-needed consortium of marriage which has resulted in the present situation where the couple have not been able to have a child. The Respondent has stopped supporting the Petitioner and verbally abused her that she has become a burden on him. The Petitioner is hardworking and so although the Respondent is resident in the USA, the Petitioner has assisted in several ways (including financially) to build a house on a plot of land acquired by the Respondent at Prampram in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. The Petitioner contributed 80% of the financing and also supervised the project since the Respondent was mostly out of the jurisdiction. The house was going to serve as the matrimonial home of the parties once it was completed so the Petitioner used her own money to register the land in the joint names of the parties. The legal issues that emerged for determination are: i. Whether or not the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation to warrant the court to decree a divorce. ii. Whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to financial settlement. iii. Whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to be settled in her favour, the Prampram property. The law on dissolution of Ordinance marriages is laid out in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). In respect of this instant case, the relevant sections are sections 1(2), 2(1)(b)(f) and (3) of Act 367. I reproduce these sections below: Cecilia Amankwah vrs Kwabena Amankwah "1(2) The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. “2(1) For the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts: (b) that the respondent has behaved in a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent; (f) that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. (3) Although the Court finds the existence of one or more of the facts specified in subsection (1), the Court shall not grant a petition for divorce unless it is satisfied, on all the evidence, that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. In the case of Mensah v. Mensah [1972] 2 GLR 198, Hayfron-Benjamin J. (as he then was) held that: “…….. it is therefore incumbent upon a court hearing a divorce petition to carefully consider all the evidence before it; for a mere assertion by one of the parties that the marriage has broken down will not be enough …..…” The Petitioner filed a 27-page witness statement and reproduced the content of the Amended Petition. The Petitioner relied on same and tendered in evidence, the Marriage Certificate. In this case, the evidence of the Petitioner has not been contested or challenged by the Respondent. In the case of Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority & Captain Zeim vrs Nova Cecilia Amankwah vrs Kwabena Amankwah Complex Ltd. [2007-08] SCGLR 806 and Takoradi Flour Mills vrs Samir Faris (2005-06) SCGLR 882, the Supreme Court held that “Where the evidence led by a party is not challenged by his opponent in cross examination and the opponent does not tender evidence to the contrary, the facts deposed to in that evidence are deemed to have been admitted by the opponent and must be accepted by the trial court. I therefore find as a fact by the behaviour of the Respondent is unreasonable such that the Petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the Respondent. From the entirety of the evidence adduced at the trial, the Court finds that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. Accordingly, I grant the Petitioner’s prayer as follows: i. The Ordinance Marriage celebrated between the parties on the 17th December, 2010 at The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints is hereby dissolved. Accordingly, the Marriage Certificate is cancelled. ii. iii. iv. I award GH¢50,000.00 as financial provision for the Petitioner. I settle the Pampram property on the Petitioner. I award cost of GH¢5,000.00 against the Respondent. …..………………………. ISAAC ADDO CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 30TH NOVEMBER, 2023 Cecilia Amankwah vrs Kwabena Amankwah 5