Ghana Judgment

Circuit Court

Monica Acheampong Vrs Stephen Kwame Owusu [2023] GHACC 516 (27 January 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367, does not require family notification as a condition precedent to filing a petition for dissolution of a customary law marriage. The Petitioner has satisfied all legal requirements to invoke the court's jurisdiction.

Court disposition

Application to dismiss petition refused

Orders

  • Case to proceed in normal course
  • Cost of GH₵2,000.00 awarded against the Applicant

02

Material facts

Parties

Monica Acheampong

Petitioner/respondent Counsel: Samuel Nana Bampoe-Parry

Stephen Kwame Owusu

Respondent/applicant Counsel: Josuah Adda-Boateng

Amounts and remedies

  • Costs Awarded Against Applicant: GHS 2,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Matrimonial Cause (divorce Petition) / Ruling on Preliminary Application to Dismiss Petition

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The marriage is under customary law and the Petitioner failed to notify the Respondent's family, making the petition irregular and premature.
Respondent
Leave of court was obtained to file the petition and the customary requirement of returning drinks to the Respondent's family was fulfilled.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367, Section 41

    Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367, allows a party to a customary marriage to apply to court for dissolution without any condition precedent of family notification.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367, does not require family notification as a condition precedent to filing a petition for dissolution of a customary law marriage. The Petitioner has satisfied all legal requirements to invoke the court's jurisdiction.

Obiter and limits

  • The presentation of drinks by the Petitioner's family is presumed to notify the Respondent's family of the intention to divorce.

Court disposition

Application to dismiss petition refused

  • Case to proceed in normal course
  • Cost of GH₵2,000.00 awarded against the Applicant

Source and reliance status

Circuit Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Circuit Court

Judgment

[2023] GHACC 516

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 3, HELD AT ACCRA TUESDAY THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 BEFORE HER HONOUR SUSANA EDUFUL (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE. COURT CASE NO. C5/31/2023

MONICA ACHEAMPONG

PETITIONER

VRS

STEPHEN KWAME OWUSU

RESPONDENT

RULING The Respondent/Applicant is by this motion seeking an order to dismiss the petition filed as irregular. The Petitioner/Respondent filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on August 25, 2022. Accordi ng to the Petitioner the parties are married under customary law. Their marriage was celebrated on or about May 1986. The ground for the petition is unreasonable behavior on the part of the Respondent/Applicant. The Respondent filed a conditional appearance on September 27, 2022. The Applicant has brought this application on the grounds that they are married under customary law, which is a marriage between the two families of the parties. The Respondent/Applicant has stated that by custom the Petitioner must inform the Respondents family but she has not done so. It is the Applicants contention that if the court goes ahead to hear and dissolves the marriage it would have been done without the knowledge of the family and the family may still consider the marriage as persisting. In Response, the Petitioner/Respondent has stated that she sought leave of the court to file the Petition and same was granted by the court. According to the Petitioner she has returned the drinks to the Respondents family as required under customary law. Section 41 of Act 367 1971 allows a party to a customary marriage to apply to the court in order to dissolve his or her marriage in accordance

with the Matrimonial Caused Act 1971 Act 367. Section 41—Application of this Act. (1) This Act shall apply to all monogamous marriages. (2) On application by a party to a marriage other than a monogamous marriage, the court shall apply the provisions of this Act to that marriage, and in so doing, subject to the requirements of justice, equity and good conscience, the Court may— (a) have regard to the peculiar incidents of that marriage in determining appropriate relief, financial provision and child custody arrangements; (b) grant any form of relief recognized by the personal law of the parties to the proceedings, either in addition to or in substitution for the matrimonial reliefs afforded by this Act. (3) In the application of section 2 (1) of this Act to a marriage other than a monogamous marriage, the court shall have regard to any facts recognized by the personal law of the parties as sufficient to justify a divorce, including in the case of a customary law marriage (but without prejudice to the foregoing) the following— (a) willful neglect to maintain a wife or child; (b) impotence; (c) barrenness or sterility; (d) intercourse prohibited under that personal law on account of consanguinity, affinity or other relationship; (e) persistent false allegations of infidelity by one spouse against another: Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the requirements

of justice, equity and good conscience. Having considered the provision under Section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367, it does not provide any condition precedent to be complied with before an application can be heard under this section. The Respondent has satisfied all the processes required by law to evoke the Jurisdiction of this court hence the proper forum. The Court presumes that the presentation of the drinks by the Petitioners/Respondents family is to notify the Respondents/Applicants family of her intention to divorce the Respondent Applicant. Consequently, this application is refused. The case will take is normal course. Cost of GH₵2,000.00 is ordered against the Applicant herein.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION JOSUAH ADDA-BOATENG FOR APPLICANT SAMUEL NANA BAMPOE-PARRY FOR RESPONDENT H/H SUSANA EDUFUL (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) 4

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1971, Act 367

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.