Ackon v Apraku (C5/26/2024) [2025] GHACC 76 (4 April 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO. C5/26/2024 MOSES AYENSU ACKON --------------- PETITIONER UNIT A1 1602, TONGHAI NAN ROAD, YIJIA HUADU, YUEYANLOU DISTRICT, YUEYANG CITY HUNAN CHINA PETITIONING PER HIS LAWFUL ATTORNEY MANASSEH KOBINA MENSAH ACCRA VRS EUGENIA ADWOA FOAA APRAKU --------------- RESPONDENT 50/B/536 SOWUTUOM 27 PLANET CLOSE GC-041-0841 PARTIES: PETITIONER’S LAWFUL ATTORNEY PRESENT RESPONDENT’S LAWFUL ATTORNEY PRESENT Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 1 of 9 COUNSEL: KOFI AGYEKUM BOATENG, ESQ. WITH CECIL KOBY ASARE, ESQ. HOLDING THE BRIEF OF JUDE OSAFO YAW ADU-AMANKWAH, ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER PRESENT GABRIEL NORTEY, ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT JUDGMENT FACTS The parties got married under the Marriage Ordinance Cap. 127, on 23rd June 2022, at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra. There is no issue of the marriage. On 17th July 2024, the Petitioner through his lawful attorney filed the instant petition on grounds that the marriage between himself and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation due to separation and irreconcilable differences. He prayed the Court for the marriage celebrated between the parties to be dissolved. In her answer to the petition, the Respondent admitted that their marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation due to separation and irreconcilable differences; and added that she cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Petitioner after many years of not living as husband and wife. She also prayed that the marriage between the parties be dissolved. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 2 of 9 In his evidence to the Court, the Petitioner’s lawful attorney testified among other things that, in June 2022 the Petitioner and Respondent were lawfully married under the Marriages Act (CAP 127) and tendered the Marriage Certificate in evidence. That the Petitioner and Respondent had no issues during the marriage of two years; and both parties are Ghanaian citizens but are not presently in Ghana. That the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation due to separation. That there are irreconcilable differences and the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years since they got married. THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent also testified through her lawful attorney who in his evidence told the Court that, his name is Prince Paul Krakue. He tendered in evidence a copy of the Power of Attorney given to him by the Respondent, as exhibit ‘1’. He confirmed the fact that the Petitioner and the Respondent got married on 23rd June 2022 at Accra Metropolitan Assembly under the Marriage Ordinance Cap. 127; and also tendered a copy of the marriage certificate as exhibit ‘2’. He further testified that the Respondent is a Ghanaian but shuffles between the United States of America and Ghana in terms of work, and tendered a copy of the Respondent’s Ghanaian passport as exhibit ‘3’. According to the Respondent’s attorney, following the marriage of the parties in 2022, they never cohabited because the Petitioner relocated to China which compelled the Respondent to focus on her work in the United States of America. That all efforts made to get the parties together as a married couple proved futile, especially due to the Petitioner's unwillingness to make time and put in effort. As a result, the Respondent totally lost interest in the marriage. He concluded that the marriage has broken down beyond Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 3 of 9 reconciliation and the Respondent cannot reasonably be expected to continue to stay married to the Petitioner. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the marriage celebrated between the parties herein has broken down beyond reconciliation. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF In every civil case, the general rule is that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether Petitioner or Respondent, who substantially asserts the affirmative of his or her case. In the case of Adwubeng v. Domfeh [1996-97] SCGLR 660, the Supreme Court held that in all civil actions, the standard of proof is proof by preponderance of probabilities, and there is no exception to that rule. Section 11(4) of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) explains the burden of proof in civil cases as follows: “In other circumstances, the burden of producing evidence requires a party to produce sufficient evidence so that on all the evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that the existence of the fact was more probable than its non-existence”. Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 4 of 9 The standard of proof as stated therefore applies to a petition for divorce. See Happee v. Happee [1971] 1 GLR 104. Thus, the burden is on the parties to prove the facts alleged to establish the breakdown of the marriage. ANALYSIS Before I examine the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is important to set out the relevant sections of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) namely; sections 1(2), 2(1) and (3) which provide as follows: "1(2) The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. 2(1) For the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the Petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts:- ... (a) that the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of the adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent; (b) that the Respondent has behaved in a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent; (c) that the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; (d) that the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband 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 the consent shall not Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 5 of 9 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 despite the refusal; (e) that the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband 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. (3) notwithstanding that the Court finds the existence of one or more of the facts specified in subsection (1), the Court shall not grant a petition for divorce unless it is satisfied, on all the evidence that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation." In the instant case, it is required that the evidence adduced by the parties herein must be able to demonstrate one or more of the facts under section 2(1) of Act 367 to prove that the marriage has broken down completely. From the evidence adduced by the parties at the hearing, I made the subsequent observations and findings: The Petitioner’s attorney testified that due to the separation of the parties, the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation. That there are irreconcilable differences between the parties and as a result of that, the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years since they got married. The Respondent’s attorney also adduced evidence to the effect that subsequent to the marriage of the parties in 2022, they never cohabited because the Petitioner relocated to Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 6 of 9 China and that made the Respondent focus on her work in the United States of America. That all efforts made to get the parties together as a married couple proved futile; and due to that, the Respondent totally lost interest in the marriage. Under cross examination the Respondent’s attorney maintained that the parties attempted reconciliation on several occasions but were not successful. The evidence on record indicates that the parties have irreconcilable differences and this led to their separation after their marriage therefore they have not lived together as husband and wife for the past two years. In Knudsen v. Knudsen [1976] 1 GLR 204 CA, the Court of Appeal per Amissah JA stated as follows: “… Of course, in a state of affairs where the duty is placed upon the Petitioner to show that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, common prudence indicates that attempts at reconciliation be made whenever possible and that where such attempts have been made without success evidence of these be given to help the Court arrive at the desired conclusion.” The evidence on record clearly suggests that there were several attempts at reconciliation by the parties but all were unsuccessful. After a careful examination of the evidence adduced by the respective lawful attorneys of the parties herein, it is undisputable that the parties to the marriage have been unable to reconcile their differences. It is also not in issue that the parties have not lived as husband and wife for over two years now. It is again not in dispute that the Respondent equally prays for the dissolution of their marriage. Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 7 of 9 Accordingly, I find as a fact that the parties to the marriage have been unable or failed to live together as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition and the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce. Also, I find that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. Flowing from the above, I find that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. CONCLUSION From the foregoing, I conclude that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation and in the circumstances; I do hereby grant the prayer of both parties for dissolution of the marriage and enter judgment in the following terms; 1. I hereby grant a decree for the dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 23rd June 2022, at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra. Thus, the marriage is hereby dissolved. 2. The marriage certificate issued to the parties herein with Certificate No. 0880/MC/2022 and License No. AMA/02201695/2022 is accordingly cancelled. 3. Each party shall bear their own cost of the suit. Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 8 of 9 [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) Moses Ayensu Ackon v. Eugenia Adwoa Foaa Apraku Page 9 of 9