ANNOR VRS. OPPONG (A8/070/24) [2024] GHADC 488 (20 September 2024)

CORAM: HER WORSHIP AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.), MAGISTRATE, ADABRAKA DISTRICT COURT ‘2’, SITTING AT THE FORMER STOOL LANDS BOUNDARIES SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OFFICES NEAR WORKERS’ COLLEGE, ACCRA ON 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2024. SUIT NO. A8/070/24 MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR ABEKA LAPAZ TOTAL FILLING STATION :: PETITIONER VRS. NAOMI OPPONG ACCRA :: RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Introduction/Background The Petitioner herein filed a Petition for Divorce in this Honourable Court on 1st November 2023 praying that the marriage between him and the Respondent be dissolved. The Petitioner averred that the parties married under the ordinance on 26th September 2015 at the Living Light Christian Centre, Bohyen, Kumasi and cohabited in Accra. They have no child together. It is the Petitioner’s case that the marriage between him and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation. He averred that the Respondent had never cooked or washed for him since they married. He further averred that the Respondent was disrespectful and was still MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR V. NAOMI OPPONG 1 having illicit affair with her ex-boyfriend. He stated that the Respondent’s behaviour had been persisting for over nine years. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent informed him that she would be attending the funeral of the mother of her ex-boyfriend but he advised her not to go. He stated that some time later, she informed him that she was attending a funeral in her family house but he got to know that it was rather the funeral of the mother of Respondent’s ex-boyfriend which she went for. He added that Respondent went to collect wrist watch and other items from the ex-boyfriend, and that she had been peddling falsehood to the ex-boyfriend and collecting monies from him. The Petitioner averred that he was invited by Respondent’s family for a meeting and at the meeting, he was asked by Respondent’s father to compensate Respondent with an amount of GH¢10,000.00 for them to part ways. He stated that attempts at reconciliation had been unsuccessful. He further stated that the Respondent’s behaviour had caused him embarrassment, trauma and anxiety and he cannot reasonably be expected to remain married to her. Notwithstanding service of the Petition, Hearing Notices and Petitioner’s witness statement, the Respondent neither filed any process nor appeared in Court. The Respondent was duly served with notice of the Petitioner’s Petition, Hearing Notices and Petitioner’s Witness Statement but she filed no process. Issue The main issue arising for consideration by this Court is whether or not the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation. Evaluation of evidence and legal analysis MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR V. NAOMI OPPONG 2 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 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. MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR V. NAOMI OPPONG 3 It is material to point out that although the Court may find the existence of one or more of the facts specified above, the law does not require the Court to decree divorce unless it is satisfied, on all the evidence that the marriage has indeed broken down beyond reconciliation. See the case of Kotei v. Kotei [1974] 2 GLR 172. 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. The Petitioner adduced evidence on 6th September 2024 by relying on his witness statement filed on 14th June 2024. He testified that the Respondent did not accord him with respect, was always annoyed, insulted him and shouted at him without any justification. He further testified that the Respondent was still in touch with the ex-boyfriend and when the latter came to Ghana, the Respondent went to stay with him in Kumasi. He stated that he complained to the Respondent’s father about Respondent’s behaviour, only for her father to tell him to part ways with her. He said he was subsequently invited by Respondent’s family for a meeting in Kumasi for purposes of customary act of dissolution and he therefore presented a drink and an amount of GH¢10,000.00 which had been requested by Respondent’s family. He added that the Respondent later came to pack out her belongings from the matrimonial home. The Respondent failed to react to any of the averments in the Petition by way of an Answer to debunk the allegations. In the absence of an Answer, it is presumed that the matters contained in the Petition are admitted by her. The law is that there is generally no need for a Plaintiff [Petitioner] to call further or any evidence to prove allegations or assertions of fact in his/her claim where there is no joinder of issues. See the cases of Fori v Ayerebi [1966] 2 GLR 627; Total Ghana Ltd v Thompson [2011] 1 SCGLR 458; Air Namibia (Pty) Ltd v Micon Travel and Tours & Others [2015] 91 G.M.J. 173 @ 194. The Respondent also failed to appear in Court either by herself or through an Attorney to subject the Petitioner to cross examination to challenge his MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR V. NAOMI OPPONG 4 assertions. I must state that this Court did not find the evidence of the Petitioner incredible or romancing in character to discredit same. The incontrovertible evidence led by the Petitioner is therefore accepted by the Court as credible. I find as a fact that the Respondent has behaved unreasonably towards the Petitioner with her conduct of being disrespectful and verbally abusive towards Petitioner and engaging in extra marital affair with her former boyfriend. It would not be reasonably expected that the Petitioner will remain married to the Respondent. Quite apart, attempts at settlement of the parties’ differences have not yielded any positive outcome. Indeed, the Respondent’s family has met the Petitioner and a customary act of dissolution has taken place with the Petitioner returning the customary drink and compensating the Respondent with an amount of GH¢10,000.00 as demanded by Respondent’s family. The Court is satisfied from the evidence on record of the Petitioner that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation and in the Court’s humble view, it would be pointless to refuse the prayer for dissolution of the marriage. Having found that the marriage between the parties herein has broken down beyond reconciliation, I grant the relief of the Petitioner and decree that the marriage celebrated between the parties on 26th September 2015 at the Living Light Christian Centre, Bohyen, Kumasi is hereby dissolved. Cost of GH¢2,000.00 is awarded for the Petitioner against the Respondent. AMA ADOMAKO-KWAKYE (MS.) (MAGISTRATE) MICHAEL OPPONG ANNOR V. NAOMI OPPONG 5