Owusu Sekyere Vrs. Abbey-Quaye (A4/20/2022) [2022] GHADC 395 (18 November 2022)

Owusu Sekyere Vrs. Abbey-Quaye (A4/20/2022) [2022] GHADC 395 (18 November 2022)

The petitioner failed to prove unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, but the uncontroverted evidence of nine years of separation and failed reconciliation attempts satisfies the statutory ground for dissolution under section 2(1)(e) and (f) of Act 367. The marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and must be dissolved.

Citation
[2022] GHADC 395
Parties
Petitioner: Alice Owusu Sekyere; Respondent: Francis Yaw Abbey-Quaye
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Case Number
A4/20/2022
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition granted
Legal Topics
Dissolution of Marriage, Custody of Children, Unreasonable Behaviour, Separation
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alice Owusu Sekyere

Petitioner

Francis Yaw Abbey-Quaye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has established unreasonable behaviour by the respondent
  3. 3 Custody of minor children

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to prove unreasonable behaviour by the respondent, but the uncontroverted evidence of nine years of separation and failed reconciliation attempts satisfies the statutory ground for dissolution under section 2(1)(e) and (f) of Act 367. The marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and must be dissolved.

Court Disposition

petition granted

Orders

  • The marriage celebrated under the Marriage Ordinance Cap 127 on 5th June 1999 is dissolved and cancelled.
  • Custody of the last child and any other minor child is granted to the respondent with reasonable access to the petitioner.