Ameudah v Cobbinah (C5/08/2024) [2025] GHACC 85 (7 March 2025)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD AT ACHIMOTA, ACCRA ON FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE HER HONOUR AKOSUA ANOKYEWAA ADJEPONG (MRS.), CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO. C5/08/2024 SOPHIA AMEUDAH --------------- PETITIONER KWABENYA, ACCRA VRS DANIEL KWEKU COBBINAH --------------- RESPONDENT ACCRA PARTIES: PRESENT COUNSEL: DORA OCQUAYE-NORTEY, ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER PRESENT PRINCE BOAHEN GYAN, ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT PRESENT JUDGMENT FACTS The parties got married under Ordinance Cap. 127, on 11th September 2020, at the Weija- Gbawe Municipal Assembly, Accra. There are two issues of the marriage. On 4th January Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 1 of 10 2024, the Petitioner filed the instant petition on grounds that the marriage between herself and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation due to the unreasonable behaviour of the Respondent; and prayed the Court for the following reliefs; a. Dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 11th September, 2020 at the Weija-Gbawe Municipal Assembly. b. Custody of both issues of the marriage. c. Maintenance of GHS3,000 monthly for each issue of the marriage. d. School fees, accommodation and medical bills to be borne by the Respondent. e. Respondent to pay GHS50,000 to Petitioner as alimony. f. Costs. g. Any other order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit. In his answer to the petition and cross petition, the Respondent denied the allegations of unreasonable behaviour and adultery, and stated that it is rather the Petitioner who deserted the matrimonial home of the parties, and acted unreasonably. The Respondent cross petitioned as follows: a. An order for the dissolution of the marriage. b. Custody of both issues of the marriage to the Respondent and reasonable access to the Petitioner. c. An order directed at the Petitioner to change the names of the issues of the marriage to the names known in paragraph 4 of the Answer. d. An order that the maintenance of the issues of the marriage shall be borne by the parties equally. e. Financial settlement of GHS100,000 from the petitioner for desertion, emotional trauma, psychological distress, and physical pain he has been subjected to. Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 2 of 10 f. Cost including legal fees of the present suit. At the setting down for trial stage, Counsel for the respondent submitted to the Court that the parties have been able to settle on the ancillary reliefs and they were going to file their Terms of Settlement. The court therefore ordered the parties to file their respective Witness Statements for hearing to be conducted on the dissolution of the marriage in accordance with section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). The parties subsequently filed their Terms of Settlement on the 23rd day of January 2025, in the Registry of this Court, on the ancillary reliefs which indicated that there was a successful settlement on the ancillary reliefs. 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’ agreement on the ancillary reliefs as per their Terms of Settlement filed on 23rd 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. In view of the above, the hearing of the instant petition was basically on the dissolution of the marriage. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 3 of 10 In her evidence to the Court, the Petitioner testified that she and the Respondent married on 11th September 2020 under the Ordinance at the Weija-Gbawe Municipal Assembly. She tendered in evidence a copy of the Marriage Certificate as Exhibit A. She continued that there are two (2) issues (twins) of the marriage namely Nhyira Kwame Nelson and Adom Kwame Nelson, both 5 years. According to the petitioner, the marriage between her and the respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation with the family of the Respondent having presented customary drinks to her family. That they have not lived together as husband and wife for the past three years and the Respondent consents that the marriage should be dissolved. The petitioner concluded that they have filed terms of settlement in this matter and would pray the court to adopt same as consent judgment. The Petitioner did not call witness and thereafter closed her case. THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent in his evidence confirmed his marriage to the Petitioner, and the fact that the parties have two issues (twins) of the marriage namely Justice Ato Cobbinah and Joshua Kwamena Cobbinah. The Respondent further testified that the marriage between himself and the petitioner has broken down beyond reconciliation. That after they got married in 2020, they have not lived together as husband and wife for the past four years. He continued that the parties are not able to reconcile their differences, and based on that they have not lived together. That parties have agreed on the ancillary reliefs between them and therefore pray the court adopt it as the consent judgment between the parties. The Respondent did not also call witness and closed his case thereafter. Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 4 of 10 LEGAL ISSUE The legal issue to be determined by this Court is whether or not the marriage 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”. 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 Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 5 of 10 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 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. Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 6 of 10 (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 indicate 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 in her evidence testified that, the marriage between her and the respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation with the family of the Respondent having presented customary drinks to her family. That they have not lived together as husband and wife for the past three years and the Respondent consents that the marriage should be dissolved. She added that the parties have filed terms of settlement in this matter and would pray the court to adopt same as consent judgment. The Respondent also basically testified in his evidence that after he and the petitioner got married in 2020, they have not lived together as husband and wife for the past four years and it is due to the fact that the parties are not able to reconcile their differences. That they have agreed on the ancillary reliefs between them and therefore pray the court adopt it as the consent judgment. Both parties in their respective pleadings made several allegations against each other however, they decided not to adduce evidence to establish the said allegations. Both parties had the burden of proof to lead sufficient evidence to prove their respective allegations of unreasonable behavior, adultery and desertion made in the pleadings filed but they agreed not to do so. Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 7 of 10 The Supreme Court in the case of Ofori Agyekum v. Madam Akua Bio (Dec’d) substituted by Agartha Amoah; Civil Appeal No. J4/59/2014, dated 13th April, 2016, SC (Unreported), held per Benin JSC thus: “…Where no evidence is adduced on a fact that has been pleaded, it is treated as having been abandoned by the pleader, the Court does not call it into question in its judgment. The Court’s only duty is to consider the evidence the party has proffered in determining whether or not he has met the right standard of proof”. Applying the above authority to the instant petition, the said assertions that were pleaded by the parties are deemed as having been abandoned by them; I accordingly dismiss the said allegations as unsubstantiated and abandoned. The court shall therefore consider the evidence the parties have proffered to determine whether or not they have met the right standard of proof. From the evidence on record as adduced by the parties, there is an indication that the parties have irreconcilable differences and this led to their separation before the presentation of the present petition. After a careful examination of the evidence adduced by the parties, it is undisputable that the parties to the marriage have not been able to reconcile their differences after unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation. Accordingly, I find that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences. Moreover, I find from the evidence before this court 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. Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 8 of 10 Flowing from the above, I find that the marriage between the parties herein 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; 1. I hereby grant a decree for the dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 11th September 2020, at the Weija-Gbawe Municipal Assembly, Accra. Thus, the marriage is hereby dissolved. 2. The marriage certificate with Certificate No. OMR/185/20 and License No. WGMA/1944213/20 is accordingly cancelled. 3. The Terms of Settlement signed by the parties herein and their witnesses; and filed on the 23rd day of January 2025 is hereby adopted by the Court and same is 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. There shall be no order as to costs. [SGD.] H/H AKOSUA A. ADJEPONG (MRS) Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 9 of 10 (CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE) Sophia Ameudah v. Daniel K. Cobbinah Page 10 of 10