LAMPTEY VRS MENSAH (A8/71/23) [2023] GHADC 707 (11 August 2023)

CORAM: HER WORSHIP AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.), MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT COURT ‘2’, KANESHIE, SITTING AT THE FORMER STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OFFICES NEAR WORKERS’ COLLEGE, ACCRA ON 11TH AUGUST, 2023. SUIT NO. A8/71/23 ANITA NAA LAMILEY LAMPTEY H/NO. GPS GA-074-0726 WATSON ROAD, ADABRAKA :: PETITIONER VRS. VICTOR NII OTOO ADAMAH MENSAH H/NO. GPS GW-O845-4594 TANTRA HILLS - ACCRA :: RESPONDENT JUDGMENT The parties herein married under Part III of CAP 127 on 22nd December 2018 at the Rev. Ernest Bruce Memorial Methodist Church, Adabraka, Accra. They have one child together, Lois-Peniel Naa Nyarkoa Adamah-Mensah who is 3 years of age. Both parties aver that their marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation but attribute the state of affairs to the conduct of the other. The Petitioner in her Petition averred that the Respondent has failed to discharge his responsibilities towards their child, leaving the burden on her and that he did not show any care for her. She averred that the parties have not lived as husband and wife since Page 1 of 6 December 2021 and have had no sexual intercourse since then. The Petitioner stated that the Respondent used abusive words against her when they had a misunderstanding and also defamed her before his family. She prayed this Court for the following reliefs: a. An order to dissolve the marriage celebrated on the 22nd December 2018. b. A further order for custody of the child be granted to the Petitioner with reasonable access by the Respondent. c. An order for the Respondent to maintain the child with GH ȼ1,500.00 per month. d. To pay school fees, medical bills and other needs when due. In responding to the Petition, the Respondent averred that it was the Petitioner’s incorrigible attitude which had negatively affected the marriage. He averred that he had been taking care of the needs of the child such as the payment of her school fees and health expenses and he has to sometimes borrow money to be able to meet the needs of the child. The Respondent stated that the Petitioner threatened him when he made an attempt to have intimacy with her. He denied behaving unreasonably, using abusive words or defaming Petitioner. The Respondent averred that the Petitioner packed out of the matrimonial home with their child without any reason and several attempts made by his relatives and family friend to reconcile the parties have been unsuccessful since the Petitioner and her family have an entrenched stance of having the marriage dissolved. He prayed for custody of the child and to be permitted to maintain the child monthly at ȼ500.00 since he was not in any employment and was searching for a job. Page 2 of 6 The parties were able to have the ancillary matters settled with the facilitation of a Court- connected Mediator and aside agreeing for the marriage to be dissolved and for the Court to adopt their terms, they agreed also on the following terms: 1. That the Respondent shall provide monthly maintenance of GH ȼ 600.00 for the child. 2. That the Respondent shall pay the termly school fees of the child whenever the bill is drawn. 3. That the Respondent shall continue to bear the medical bills of the child each time the child falls sick. 4. That the Respondent shall support the Petitioner in respect of any increase in the bills of the child that may arise in the near future. 5. That both parties shall live in peace and take good care of the child. With the ancillary matters having been settled on, the only outstanding issue for this Court’s resolution is whether or not the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation. According to Section 1(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), the only ground upon which any Court in Ghana can grant a petition for divorce is that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2(1) of Act 367 further provides the six facts which can be relied on in proving that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. A Petitioner is therefore duty bound to satisfy the court of the existence of any of the following facts: - (a) That the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of such adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent; or Page 3 of 6 (b) That the Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent; or (c) That the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (d) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce; provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and where the Court is satisfied that it has been so withheld, the Court may grant a petition for divorce under this paragraph notwithstanding the refusal; or (e) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (f) That the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. According to the Petitioner’s evidence-in-chief by way of her witness statement filed on 14th April 2023, the parties married on 22nd December 2018. She tendered in evidence the original copy of their marriage certificate. It is her evidence that the parties’ marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Her evidence was basically a repetition on oath of her averments in her Petition. The Respondent’s evidence as well also repeated what he had in his Response. The allegations of unreasonable behaviour made by the Petitioner against the Respondent which included failure of Respondent to play his fatherly role, slandering her and using abusive words against her during a misunderstanding were not sufficiently proved before the Court. The Respondent for instance had denied these strenuously and Page 4 of 6 also asserted that he took care of the child’s expenses to the extent of sometimes having to borrow from others to meet her needs. The Petitioner had the duty of adducing cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence on a balance of probabilities to convince the Court that the Respondent had indeed behaved in such an unreasonable manner that it would not be reasonably expected that she continues to live with him. This, she failed woefully to do, but barely repeated her averments on oath, which does not constitute proof in law. See the case of Majolagbe v Larbi & Anor [1959] GLR 190 @ 192. Section 2(1) (f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Act 367 is to the effect that, one of the facts for establishing that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation is to establish that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. From the evidence of the parties, I found that there had been several attempts to have the parties reconciled. Quite unfortunately, nothing positive had come out of these efforts. The parties have been staying apart for about one and a half years now, without any form of consortium and intimacy. I hold the view that this present status would not have been so if the attempts at reconciliation had been successful. It is therefore a fact I find that the parties have been unable to reconcile their differences after diligent efforts and thus the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. There would be no useful purpose served in refusing the parties’ prayer for the dissolution of their marriage, having taken into account the existence of this fact pointing clearly to a breakdown of their marriage. In the light of this, this Court therefore holds as follows: 1. That the ordinance marriage celebrated between the parties on 22nd December 2018 at the Rev. Ernest Bruce Memorial Methodist Church, Adabraka, Accra is hereby dissolved; Page 5 of 6 2. That the Court enters consent judgment on the basis of the terms of settlement duly executed by the parties on 8th December 2022 and incorporates same as part of this judgment which parties are to adhere to same. [SGD] AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.) DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Page 6 of 6