BAH VRS. BRAIMAH (A8/159/24) [2024] GHADC 487 (25 October 2024)

CORAM: HER WORSHIP AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.), MAGISTRATE, SITTING AT THE KOTOBABI DISTRICT COURT ‘2’, NEAR KOTOBABI CLUSTER OF SCHOOLS, ACCRA ON 25TH OCTOBER, 2024. SUIT NO. A8/159/24 MARIAM ALI BAH ACCRA NEWTOWN :: PETITIONER VRS. SEIDU BRAIMAH NIMA :: RESPONDENT JUDGMENT This Petition was initiated on 17th May 2024. The Respondent also filed his Answer to the Petition on 26th June 2024. The uncontested facts are that the parties married at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra on 10th January 2017 and cohabited thereafter at Adabraka. They do not have any child together. They both hold the view that their marriage has hit a rock and broken down beyond reconciliation and consequently, pray that the marriage is dissolved by the Court. It is the Petitioner’s case that the parties have lived apart for six years now and that all attempts made by themselves, their relatives and Pastors to assist them reconcile their differences have been futile. She averred that the Respondent returned the customary drink to her family in January 2019 and he now lives with another woman. MARIAM ALI BAH V. SEIDU BRAIMAH 1 The Respondent essentially admitted the Petitioner’s averments save to add that Petitioner was highly indebted after the marriage and since he was deprived peace of mind, he moved to stay with his parents for some time. He further stated that the Petitioner unceremoniously deserted the matrimonial home and both of them had agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. The only issue for the Court’s determination is whether or not the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 1(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) allows either party to a marriage to present a petition to the Court for divorce. Section 1(2) of the Act further emphasizes that, the sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. In order to prove that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, a Petitioner has the duty of satisfying the Court of the existence of at least one of the six facts specified in section 2(1)(a)-(f) of Act 367. Proof of any one of these facts raises a presumption that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. If any of the facts is made out, the Court must grant the dissolution unless it is satisfied that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably. These facts include the following: 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 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 MARIAM ALI BAH V. SEIDU BRAIMAH 2 withheld, the Court may grant a petition for divorce under this paragraph notwithstanding the refusal; 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. Before the Court can dissolve the marriage, it must satisfy itself that it has been proved on the preponderance of probabilities that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. See: Charles Akpene Ameko v Saphira Kyerema Agbenu [2015] 91 G.M.J. 202 @ 221. Both parties testified on 27th September 2024 by relying on their respective witness statements filed on 4th September 2024. They both waived their right to cross examine the other. The Petitioner’s evidence was that the parties lived together for only a few years after marriage and that the Respondent started behaving unreasonably towards her the same year they married. She stated that the Respondent was very temperamental, refused to cooperate to have their issues resolved, made inappropriate comments about her, disregarded her opinion, failed to show her love and sometimes refused to sleep on the matrimonial bed, preferring to sleep in the couch. The Respondent also testified that the Petitioner was always angry, disrespectful to him, shouted at him and insulted him without any justification. He stated that the behaviour of Petitioner had persisted for over three years and their marriage had been filled with quarrels and unhappiness. He added that communication between the parties had broken down and he agreed that the marriage ought to come to an end. It is obvious that the relationship between the parties has been characterized by hostility towards each other and the marriage has been devoid of happiness. The parties have stayed MARIAM ALI BAH V. SEIDU BRAIMAH 3 apart for over five years and efforts at reconciliation have all been futile. In fact, as far back as January 2019, which is over five years ago, the customary drink was returned. There seems to be no possibility of reconciliation in sight as it stands now. The Court finds that the marriage between the parties has really broken down beyond reconciliation and accordingly, the prayer to have the marriage dissolved is granted. I therefore decree that the marriage celebrated between the parties at the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, Accra on 10th January 2017 is hereby dissolved. AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.) (MAGISTRATE) MARIAM ALI BAH V. SEIDU BRAIMAH 4