Boateng v Addo (C5/28/2024) [2025] GHACC 71 (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. C5/28/2024 KWABENA MANU BOATENG --------------- PETITIONER GA-506-0316 OBLOGO ROAD, DANSOMAN ACCRA VRS AMA YIADOMAH ADD0 --------------- RESPONDENT GM-1109-7562 HOUSE NO, 8, 7TH CLOSE JUSTICE A. BROBBEY AVENUE ACHIMOTA, ACCRA PARTIES: PRESENT COUNSEL: SESI TETTEY, ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER PRESENT BENEDICTA HAMMOND HOLDING THE BRIEF OF NAA DJAMAH AYIKOI OTOO, ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 1 of 10 JUDGMENT FACTS The parties got married under the Marriage Ordinance Cap. 127, on 8th September 2018 at St. James Catholic Church, Osu, Accra. There is one issue of the marriage. On 19th August 2024, the Petitioner herein filed the instant petition on grounds that the marriage between himself and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation due to failure by the parties to live as husband and wife; and irreconcilable differences. The Petitioner prayed the Court for the following reliefs; i. Dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and Respondent on 8th September 2018. ii. That Petitioner be given reasonable access to the child of the marriage. iii. That each party bears their costs. In her answer to the petition and cross petition, the Respondent admitted the Petitioner’s assertions and cross petitioned as follows: a. An order for the dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties on 8th September 2018 at the St. James Catholic Church, Osu, Accra. b. Custody of Kuukua Nyamewaa Boateng the child of the marriage be granted to Respondent. c. An order that Petitioner pays a reasonable sum monthly towards the maintenance of the child. d. An order that the Petitioner pays the school fees and medical expenses of the child. e. Further relief(s) as this Honourable Court deems fit. Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 2 of 10 I deem it necessary to mention that at the setting the matter down for trial stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the parties had filed their Terms of Settlement on the ancillary reliefs and prayed the Court to adopt same as consent judgment. Being a petition for divorce, as provided in section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), 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. Relying on the above authority, the Court conducted a hearing on the dissolution of the marriage to enable the determination that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation whilst the parties’ settlement on the ancillary reliefs as per their Terms of Settlement filed on 14th January 2025 will be adopted as consent judgment on the ancillary reliefs in addition to the judgment of the Court on the dissolution of the marriage. As a result, the hearing of the instant petition was basically on the dissolution of the marriage since the parties had filed their Terms of Settlement on the ancillary reliefs. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER In his evidence to the Court, the Petitioner testified among other things that he is employed at the Bank of Ghana in Accra. That he married the Respondent on the 8th day of September 2018 at St. James Catholic Church, Osu, Accra. He continued that the parties lived at Dansoman after their marriage. That the parties have one child together, a daughter named Kuukua Nyamewaa Boateng, who is four (4) years old. Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 3 of 10 According to the Petitioner he has not lived with the Respondent as husband and wife for more than two years, and despite all efforts, they have been unable to reconcile their differences. He further testified that in April 2022, he returned home to find that the Respondent had packed out of the matrimonial home and left with their child. That since the Respondent's departure, their relationship has been completely broken and the marriage has become devoid of intimacy and any form of functionality. That there has been no communication between them except concerning the welfare of their daughter. That the Respondent's family upon acknowledging the breakdown of the marriage, returned the traditional drinks to him in April 2024, signifying the end of the marriage. The Petitioner concluded that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, and all efforts to resolve their differences and to reconcile have failed. He prays that this Honourable Court dissolves this marriage. The Petitioner did not call witness and thereafter closed his case. THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent in her evidence confirmed her marriage to the Petitioner herein as asserted by the Petitioner; and the fact that they have one daughter who is currently five years old. According to the Respondent in the course of their marriage, the Petitioner consistently left home early morning for work and would return late at night around 11pm; and he was virtually never home for them to spend time together despite her persistent complaints against his behavior. That the Petitioner's behavior during the subsistence of Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 4 of 10 their marriage was unreasonable and caused her much anxiety, distress and embarrassment. That there was so much tension in the matrimonial home such that they were unable to communicate with each other for months; and the environment became stressful and unhealthy for her. The Respondent further testified that the Petitioner was also not honest and candid in his relationship with her and this caused her so much suffering emotionally and psychologically that eventually she had to leave the matrimonial home with her daughter in order to protect her mental health. The Respondent also confirmed in her evidence that she currently has no relationship whatsoever with the Petitioner, and they have not lived together as husband and wife for about two years. She concluded that their marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and that all efforts by their family and friends at reconciliation have failed because they do not desire to live together as husband and wife anymore. The Respondent did not also call witness and closed her case thereafter. LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the marriage 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. Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 5 of 10 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”. 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; Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 6 of 10 (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 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 establish 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: Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 7 of 10 The Petitioner in his evidence testified that he has not lived with the Respondent as husband and wife for more than two years, and notwithstanding all efforts made at reconciliation, they have been unable to reconcile their differences. That the parties have been separated since April 2022 which has resulted in the complete breakdown of their marriage as there has been no intimacy and any form of functionality. That there has been no communication between them except concerning the welfare of their daughter. He also testified that the Respondent's family upon acknowledging the breakdown of the marriage, returned the traditional drinks to him in April 2024, signifying the end of the marriage. The Respondent did not deny the above assertions of the Petitioner and rather confirmed that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation due to the unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Petitioner which caused her much anxiety, distress and embarrassment. That the Petitioner was also not honest and candid in his relationship with her and this caused her so much suffering emotionally and psychologically that eventually she had to leave the matrimonial home with her daughter in order to protect her mental health. From the evidence on record, there is an indication that the parties have irreconcilable differences and this led to their separation before the presentation of the present petition where their families have acknowledged the breakdown of their marriage upon their unsuccessful attempts to reconcile the parties. In Knudsen v. Knudsen [1976] 1 GLR 204 CA, the Court of Appeal per Amissah JA stated as follows: Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 8 of 10 “… 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.” Both parties in the instant petition testified that in spite of several attempts by both their families and friends to reconcile them, all efforts at reconciliation have been unsuccessful. It is therefore undisputable that the parties to the marriage have been unable to reconcile their differences. It is also not in issue that the Respondent likewise prays for the dissolution of their marriage. Accordingly, I find that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. I further 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. Flowing from the above, I find that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. CONCLUSION Consequently, 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; Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 9 of 10 1. I hereby grant a decree for the dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 8th September 2018 at St. James Catholic Church, Osu, Accra. Thus, the marriage is hereby dissolved. 2. The marriage certificate issued to the parties herein with Certificate No. SJ/231 and License No. AMA/01805767/2018 is accordingly cancelled. 3. The Terms of Settlement signed by the parties herein and their respective lawyers; and filed on the 14th day of January 2025 is hereby adopted by the Court and entered as consent judgment on the ancillary reliefs and as part of the final judgment of this Court in the instant petition; and the parties are bound by it. 4. Each party shall bear their own cost of the suit. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) Kwabena Manu Boateng v. Ama Yiadomah Addo Page 10 of 10