AIDOO VRS KARIKARI (G/WJ/DG/A4/20/23) [2023] GHADC 1045 (17 October 2023)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT WEIJA ON TUESDAY THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE HER WORSHIP RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS), DISTRICT

MAGISTRATE

ROCKLIN AIDOO

PETITIONER SUIT NO. G/WJ/DG/A4/20/23

VRS

NICHOLAS KARIKARI

RESPONDENT

PETITIONER IS PRESENT RESPONDENT IS ABSENT BUT REPRESENTED BY KOBBY NDOM ESQ. HOLDING BRIEF FOR VICTOR YANKSON ESQ.

JUDGMENT Pursuant to leave granted by the court for petitioner to commence divorce proceedings within two years of marriage, the petitioner filed a petition at the registry of this court on 14th November 2022 against the respondent for the following reliefs; 1. That the customary marriage between the parties should be dissolved.

2. That the respondent should be ordered to provide a decent accommodation for the petitioner.

3. That the respondent be ordered to pay a lump sum of GHC200,000.00 as compensation to the petitioner 4. That the respondent be ordered to pay the costs of and incidental to this suit. Parties were referred to the Court Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution for a possible reconciliation however the mediator informed the court that parties have settled on the ancillary reliefs. The respondent filed an affidavit of consent on 7th August 2023 and prayed the court to grant the relief of the petitioner.

THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER The petitioner averred that she was married customarily to the respondent under the Akan customs and tradition on 3rd October 2021 at Jema in the Bono East Region of Ghana. After the marriage parties cohabited at Weija and there is no issue of the marriage. According to petitioner, parties lived happily until respondent threw her out of the matrimonial home in September 2022 and in spite of attempts by family members to reconcile the parties, respondent indicated to her that he was no longer interested in the marriage. She added that since she moved out of the matrimonial home, respondent has failed to maintain her as a wife thus making her homeless and unemployed. She therefore prayed the court to dissolve the marriage. RESPONDENT’S CASE Respondent on the other hand pleaded that he suffered a sudden stroke after the parties’ marriage and petitioner stopped cooking for him, stayed out late and demeans respondent on grounds of his ill health. According to him, all attempts at reconciliation by the family and friends of the parties have proven futile. He prayed the court to dissolve the parties’ marriage as he has given his consent to the dissolution of same. Respondent did not call any witness.

ISSUES SET DOWN FOR DETERMINATION The issue set down for determination by the court was whether or not the marriage of the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation.

BURDEN OF PROOF It is trite that the standard of proof in all civil matters is by a preponderance of probabilities. In Bank of West Africa Ltd v Ackun[1963] 1 GLR 176 SC, the Supreme Court speaking through Sarkodee-Addo JSC as he then was held as follows; “The law is that a person who would lose if no evidence or no further evidence is led is the person upon who the onus lies to prove the facts he alleges.” Section 41(2) and (3) of the matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) reads; 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) consider the peculiar incidents of that marriage in determining appropriate relief, financial provision and child custody arrangements (b) Grant any form of relief recognised by the personal law of the parties to the proceedings, in addition to or in substitution for the matrimonial reliefs afforded by this Act.

3. In the application of section 2(1) to a marriage other than a monogamous marriage, the court shall consider the facts recognised 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) Wilful 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 and (e) Persistent false allegations of infidelity by one spouse against another At page 328 of the book “The law on Family Relations in Ghana by William Cornelius Ekow Daniels, the learned author stated as follows; “In brief it must be noted that the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 is by virtue of section 41 thereof made available to either party to a marriage under customary law who desires to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the determination of cases involving wilful neglect to maintain a spouse or a child of the household, financial provision and for any or all the matrimonial causes recognised by the Act. The petitioner relied on the fact that respondent has pushed her out of the matrimonial home and has refused to maintain her as a wife to ground her prayer for the dissolution of the customary law marriage. Counsel for the respondent informed the court that the

respondent has elected not to cross examine the petitioner or lead any evidence to rebut the allegations of the petitioner as he has already given his consent for the dissolution of the marriage and has reached terms of agreement with the petitioner with regard to the ancillary reliefs. At page 380 of the book “Practice & Procedure in the Trial Courts & Tribunals of Ghana Second Edition by S. A. Brobbey, the learned author and jurist stated as follows; “A party to a case may refuse to participate in proceedings altogether or fail to lead evidence. The rule is that when a party is given opportunity to lead evidence in support of his stand or in defence of allegations against him but deliberately declines to avail himself of that, the court can make deductions, draw conclusions or make findings on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial. From the totality of the evidence before this court, I find that respondent pushed the respondent out of the matrimonial home and has refused to maintain her. Subject to the requirements of justice, equity and good conscience I hold that the customary law marriage between Rocklin Aidoo and Nicholas Karikari celebrated under the Akan Customary law on 3rd October 2021 at Jema in the Bono East Region is hereby dissolved due to the failure of the respondent to maintain the petitioner. A certificate of divorce is to issue accordingly. The terms of agreement of the parties dated 12th January 2023 is hereby adopted as consent judgment and made a part of the final judgment of this court. I make no order as to costs. ………………(SGD)…………………. H/W RUBY NTIRI OPOKU (MRS)

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 5