Nyarko Vrs Kodua [2023] GHADC 489 (28 April 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT HELD AT KOFORIDUA THIS TUESDAY THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

BEFORE HER WORSHIP NANA AMA DABBAH FYNN NKANSAH SUIT NO: A4/43/22

VICTORIA DUFIE NYARKO …. PETITIONER OF TROM - KOFORIDUA

VERSUS

JOHN TWENEBOA KODUA …. RESPONDENT OF UNITED KINGDOM/KOFORIDUA ==================================================================== ====================================================================

JUDGMENT TIME: 11: 54 am

PARTIES

PETITIONER PRESENT

RESPONDENT ABSENT BY COURT: This is the Judgment of the Court. On the 28/01/22, the Petitioner herein filed a petition seeking for the dissolution of the marriage celebrated between herself and the Respondent on 29/04/2008 and also for alimony of GH₵50,000.00. The Petitioner, being unable to serve the Respondent personally, the Court Ordered that the Petition be served on Respondent via substituted service since Petitioner made the Court aware that at the time the Respondent was in Ghana. However, though the postings were made, the Respondent did not attend court ever in this case. The Court, striving to have the Respondent notified of these proceedings got the petitioner to provide the name of the family head of Respondent who was subpoenaed to the Court and from whom the address of the Respondent and contact details were obtained. The Court then ordered that notice of the petition be served via DHL out of jurisdiction which tracking details from DHL indicated that same has been duly delivered to him (Respondent) yet he did not respond to same. Again, the Court ordered for the witness statement to be served on Respondent out of the Jurisdiction and though same has been done, he refused to file any response at all. Thus, this Court is convinced that the Respondent is aware of the proceedings and has just been adamant. Throughout the evidence of the Petitioner what remains clear

is that since 2018 the parties have not lived as husband and wife and in 2021, the Respondent asked his family to remarry another lady on his behalf which the head of family, CLEMENT OPOKU, attested to these facts and informed the Court that he has been told by Respondent that he had dissolved his marriage with Petitioner herein. It is trite that where an ordinance marriage subsists, same must be dissolved before a party can engage in any other form of marriage. A further marriage in the presence of an undissolved ordinance marriage amounts to the offence of Bigamy provided for under Section 262 of the Criminal Offences Act 1960, (Act 29) and thus I proceed that Petitioner could report Respondent to the Police for criminal proceedings to be initiated against him. Now, considering that the parties have not lived together as husband and wife for about 5 years, the Court, pursuant to Sections 1 & 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA), 1971 (Act 367) hereby dissolves the marriage contracted between the parties on 29/01/2008 and accordingly cancels the certificate thereof with number 747/mc/2008. Again, considering the above mentioned reasons and without any opposition by the Respondent, the Court awards financial provision of GH₵50,000.00 in favor of Petitioner payable by Respondent. SGD NANA AMA DABBAH FYNN NKANSAH (MRS)

MAGISTRATE 2