Ubaida Mohammed (No. 2) Vrs. Ibrahim Mohammed (No. 2) (A6/194/2018) [2022] GHADC 370 (31 October 2022)

Ubaida Mohammed (No. 2) Vrs. Ibrahim Mohammed (No. 2) (A6/194/2018) [2022] GHADC 370 (31 October 2022)

Respondent/Applicant failed to substantiate allegations of maltreatment, did not comply with maintenance orders, and did not demonstrate that varying custody would be in the best interest of the children. The evidence and Social Enquiry Report supported continuity of custody with Applicant/Respondent, keeping siblings together, and maintaining stability. Respondent’s conduct undermined his claim for custody.

Citation
[2022] GHADC 370
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Ubaida Mohammed; Respondent/applicant: Ibrahim Mohammed
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 October 2022
Case Number
A6/194/2018
Procedural Posture
Motion for Variation of Custody Order / Ruling
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Variation of Custody, Best Interest of the Child, Maintenance, Access Rights
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Variation of Custody Best Interest of the Child Maintenance Access Rights

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubaida Mohammed

Applicant/respondent

Ibrahim Mohammed

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Motion for Variation of Custody Order / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent/Applicant is entitled to have the custody order of the three children varied in his favour having regard to the best interest of the children and the circumstances of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent/Applicant failed to substantiate allegations of maltreatment, did not comply with maintenance orders, and did not demonstrate that varying custody would be in the best interest of the children. The evidence and Social Enquiry Report supported continuity of custody with Applicant/Respondent, keeping siblings together, and maintaining stability. Respondent’s conduct undermined his claim for custody.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Custody order in favour of Applicant/Respondent remains undisturbed.
  • Respondent/Applicant is directed to fulfil maintenance responsibilities and support the children’s development.