AZUBIRE VRS ATAMPOKA ANOTHER (UE/BO/DC/A8/02/24) [2024] GHADC 645 (19 September 2024)

*HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* IN THE FAMILY TRIBUNAL/COURT, HELD AT BONGO IN THE UPPER EAST REGION OF GHANA, ON THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024. CORAM: H/W MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (CHAIRPERSON) MR. PIUS NGAARA (PANEL MEMBER) MR. JOHN AZAM (PANEL MEMBER) POGNABA CHRISTINA NGEH (PANEL MEMBER) SUIT NO. UE/BO/DC/A8/02/24 ADONGO AZUBIRE PLAINTIFF OF AZUBIRE'S HOUSE, BONGO-SOE VRS. 1. COMFORT ATAMPOKA 2. NSOH-ABAA AZUBIRE DEFENDANTS BOTH OF ABAARE-AZUBIRE'S HOUSE, AYOPIA, BONGO SOE TIME: 11:42AM PARTIES PRESENT RICHARD ADAZABRA, ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF ABSENT NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR THE DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Introduction 1. This is a unanimous decision of this court concerning the custody of the children in issue. This matter could have been resolved out of court if the parties were in good terms with each other or were communicating properly/regularly with each other. It is their inability to resolve the issue of custody of the children in issue which led to the commencement of this case before this court. Thus, the Plaintiff commenced this action on the 1st day of February, 2024 and claims against the Defendants for the following reliefs: *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 1 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* (a) An order of custody for three (3) of his children he had with 1st Defendant. (b) An order that Defendants refund an amount of GHC57,600.00 being the amount spent on the first child as maintenance. (c) Cost. 2. It must be noted that the lawyer for the Plaintiff absented himself from court without any reasonable explanation or excuse nor arrange for a colleague lawyer to represent him contrary to Regulation 98 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2020 (L.I 2423). The said regulation provides that: “A lawyer commits professional misconduct if without reasonable excuse, the lawyer does not (a) personally attend court proceedings in relation to a matter; or (b) arrange for another lawyer or a representative of the firm of that lawyer or an agent of that lawyer to be present throughout in the court proceedings in relation to a matter in which that lawyer is acting.” Also, section 8 of the Practice Direction (Effective Case Completion Planning Strategies) 2019 [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR 422 states that: “Where for any reason Counsel cannot attend trial on any day in the Trial Period, arrangement should be made for another colleague Lawyer to attend the trial on their behalf. In the absence of Counsel or any *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 2 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* arrangements for alternative representation, the Parties concerned shall be required to conduct their own cross-examination.” Being guided by the above authorities, the court proceeded with the trial without the lawyer for the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Case 3. Plaintiff says that over 23 years ago, he proposed love and marriage to the 1st Defendant who accepted the proposal and moved in to stay with him as his intended wife awaiting the completion of the marriage rites. Plaintiff says that in the course of the cohabitation with 1st Defendant, they had 4 children, namely: Asibi Atogboba Adongo aged 22 years, Francis Atogboba Adongo aged 16 years, Alamisi Adongo aged 7 years and Elizabeth Adongo aged 3 years. 4. Plaintiff says that in all these years of cohabitation with 1st Defendant, he has been looking after his children born to him by feeding them, paying medical bills, ensuring they attend school and also taking care of the mother (1st Defendant). Plaintiff says that 2nd Defendant however, has consistently refused to accept the performance of the marriage rites though plaintiff has done everything possible to make them accept the performance of the said rites. 5. Plaintiff says that before 2nd Defendant became the head of family, the earlier head of the family who was called Akubire gave the nod to the marriage before he died, but the 2nd Defendant who is now the head of family has refused to complete the marriage. Plaintiff says that after the 23 years of quasi-marriage to *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 3 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* the 1st Defendant, it is clear that 2nd Defendant has declared that the children do not belong to plaintiff, but rather belong to 2nd Defendant’s family and for that reason, 1st Defendant marriage rites cannot be performed. Plaintiff in fact says that 2nd Defendant told him that he has designated 1st Defendant as being confined to her father’s house and therefore, she cannot marry plaintiff. Plaintiff says that, the Defendants have therefore colluded and taken away all the children born to him whom he has cared for all these years. 6. Plaintiff says that he took care of first child (Asibi A. Adongo) until she got to Junior High School form 2 when covid 19 pandemic came and all schools were closed down. Plaintiff says that after covid 19, Asibi had a fight with her elder sister (Azure Adongo, a step sister) when both parents were away from home. She then went to her uncle’s house out of anger. Plaintiff says that he followed up to take her back home, but Defendants told him to allow tempers to calm down before taking her home. The Defendants later gave her out for marriage without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff. Plaintiff says he only got to know his daughter was married when the intended wife’s auntie brought two bottles of akpeteshie and one guinea fowl to him which he rejected and asked that the potential in-laws be directed to him. 7. Plaintiff says he did not hear anything after that for some time so he sent his paternal uncle to follow up on same issue. Plaintiff says that 2nd Defendant told his uncle that they were annoyed by his refusal to collect the drinks and the guinea fowl sent to him earlier and therefore took the bride pride on his daughter’s head. Plaintiff says that he got angry by that action of the Defendants and therefore, reported the matter to Social welfare at Bongo. Plaintiff says that *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 4 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* at social Welfare, the Defendants took an entrenched position that there must be spilt custody and that they would take custody of the elder children (first and second born) and plaintiff will take custody of the younger ones, but plaintiff refused. 8. Plaintiff says that the Social Welfare therefore referred the matter to the Legal Aid Commission at Bongo. Plaintiff says that Second born with the 1st Defendant (Francis Adongo) was in JHS form 2 at the time of commencement of this case, but 1st Defendant does not take very good care of him because she does not stay at one place; and that during the wet season, the boy left school and was working on people’s farm for money. Plaintiff explains that Francis used to come for school fees from him, but ever since the case was referred to the office of Legal Aid Commission, 1st Defendant warned Francis never to collect money from plaintiff again. Plaintiff says that, the third born (Alamisi Adongo) was in KG2 when she was taken away from him and she has since stopped schooling because the mother is not geographically stable and carries her to wherever she goes. 9. Plaintiff says that the last born (Elizabeth Adongo) is most likely to suffer the same fate as Alamisi because the 1st Defendant does not stay at once place and carries her wherever she goes. Plaintiff therefore prays for the above-mentioned reliefs. Defendants Case *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 5 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* 10. 1st Defendant says that she has been in a romantic relationship with plaintiff for about 23 years and that plaintiff never proposed to marry her. 1st Defendant says that Plaintiff later made several attempts to marry her and even presented items to perform her marital rites but her late father by name Akubire refused to accept the items because he wanted her to stay in his (Akubire) house and be giving birth. 1st Defendant says she gave birth to the first two children by names; Asibi Atogboba Adongo and Francis Aguboba Adongo while staying with her maternal uncle, so they belong to her father but the last two children whom she gave birth to while staying in plaintiff’s house belong to plaintiff. 11. 1st Defendant says 2nd Defendant informed plaintiff to perform customary rites to claim the last two children but plaintiff refused on the grounds that he wants all the children. 1st Defendant says that Plaintiff never came to visit the children for which he was not allowed to have access to them. 1st Defendant says her family and her took care of all the four children including Asibi Atogboba Adongo who dropped out of school without reaching JHS- form two. 1st Defendant says that her first child (Asibi A. Adongo) stayed with plaintiff but she was not having peace because her step-sister Adongo Azubire always fights her and says that she does not belong to their family. 1st Defendant says this caused Asibi A. Adongo to move to 1st Defendant parents’ house. 12. 1st Defendant says Plaintiff made follow up to bring her back home but Asibi A. Adongo refused on the grounds that her elder sister (Azubire Adongo) said she does not belong to their house. 1st Defendant says her daughter, Asibi A. Adongo travelled to Kumasi and found her fiancé but returned to Bongo-Soe with her fiancé who presented items for marriage to 2nd Defendant. 1st Defendant says 2nd *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 6 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* Defendant took the said marriage items and shared them with her and plaintiff but plaintiff refused to accept the said items. 1st Defendant says her family approved and sealed the marriage of her first daughter (Asibi A. Adongo). 13. 1st Defendant says that she took good care of Francis Adongo even though she traveled down south during the dry season for casual/menial jobs and that her third born (Alamisi Adongo) too is schooling and is in class one in Ayopia primary school. She therefore prays the honorable Court to dismiss this suit and allow her to continue to have custody of the children in issue. 14. 2nd Defendant says he is the uncle of the 1st Defendant herein and that he knows 1st Defendant was in a romantic relationship with the plaintiff. 2nd Defendant says that plaintiff sent a delegation to their then family head seeking 1st Defendant’s hand in marriage but they were told that 1st Defendant will not be given out to plaintiff in marriage. 2nd Defendant says that 1st Defendant gave birth to first and second born whilst in her matrimonial home and that plaintiff never performed any marriage rites of 1st Defendant nor took care of the said two children. 15. 2nd Defendant says that since he became the head of family, it has been the family that is taking care of the two children namely; Azure Atogboba Esther and Asampana Azure Francis; and that plaintiff only took care of two of the children namely Alamisi Adongo and Elizabeth Adongo and not all the four children. 2nd Defendant says that Azure Atogboba Esther and Asampana Azure Francis were taken care of by Defendant’s family from childhood; and that Akubire the then family head never gave his consent to the said marriage and that was the family decision. *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 7 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* 16. 2nd Defendant says that he sent the aunties of the 1st Defendant with two bottles of Akpeteshie and one guinea fowl and not to plaintiff as he claimed; and that 1st Defendant received the guinea fowl but returned the Akpeteshie because she does not take alcohol. 2nd Defendant says that he knows the second born (Francis Adongo) of 1st Defendant is still attending school very well and well taken care of by Defendant’s family. He also therefore prays the Honorable Court to dismiss this suit and allow Defendants to continue to have custody of the children. Issues for Determination 17. The issues for determination in this matter are: a. Whether or not the Plaintiff or 2nd Defendant is the father of the children in issue. b. Whether or not Plaintiff or 1st Defendant should be granted custody of the children in issue. c. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of GHC57,600.00 which he allegedly spent in maintaining their first child from Defendants. Evaluation of Evidence and Analysis of the Issues 18. The first issue to consider is whether or not Plaintiff or 2nd Defendant is the father of the children in issue. From the evidence, the Defendants do not deny the fact *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 8 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* that plaintiff is the biological father of all the children. However, Defendants’ case is that 1st Defendant was to stay in his father’s house and give birth. It is their case that 1st Defendant was not to be married. According to the Defendants their position or argument is in accordance with the Frafra custom or tradition and that explains why all attempts made by the Plaintiff to perform the marriage rites in respect of 1st Defendant prove futile. 19. Customary law is defined as rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana. Article 11(1)(e) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana states that the common law which includes customary is part of the laws of Ghana. Article 11(2) and (3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that: “The common law of Ghana shall comprise the rules of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrines of equity and the rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature. For the purposes of this article, "customary law" means the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana.” 20. The Frafra speaking people of the Upper East Region of Ghana are predominantly found within the BONABOTO areas of the region i. e Bolgatanga, Nangodi, Bongo and Tongo. They mostly practice the patrilineal system of inheritance. Also, the practice, according to the Frafra customs, holds that in the event that the existing head of family has only a girl(s) as his child(ren), the last girl-child of the father is made to “sit back at home” and give birth to a boy - child in order to sustain the father’s (family) lineage. She is, however, at liberty to *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 9 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* marry after getting a male child for the family or could stay back and is given due recognition and rights as belonging to the paternal family lineage with her son being the head of family. Where she is unable to get married she is given the opportunity to pick any man who does not belong to her patrilineal family to procreate and such children, by custom, belong to her patrilineal lineage. 21. The Frafra custom as stated in the preceding paragraph 20 is similar to the “Ndiukwu Umuiyi Akabo” custom in some part of Imo State and the Ndoki people of Rivers state in Nigeria which permits a father who has not had a male child to keep his daughter in the family to procreate out of wedlock. It must be stated that this custom has been declared repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. In the case of Anode v Mmeka (2008) 10 NWLR (1094) 1 at 19, the court held per Saulawa JCA that: “It is not in doubt, as alluded to above, that the custom applicable to Ndiukwu Umuiyi Akabo community, which permits a father to keep his daughter in the family to procreate out of wedlock, due to lack of a male child, is morally, religiously and culturally obnoxious. Such a custom is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. It is antithetic to the well cherished tenets of fundamental human rights. ... The custom in question no doubt promotes sexual promiscuity in the society and it is thus highly abominable.” 22. Even though Frafra speaking people are holding unto this custom (see paragraph 20 supra) as an esteemed cultural practice that ensures that one’s lineage does not become extinct and which in another perspective, guarantees one’s right to *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 10 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* procreate and raise a family, this court is of the view this custom is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. This is because the custom does not recognize the biological father as a father of the child in issue and also promotes sexual promiscuity in the society which is highly unacceptable. 23. Moreover, it is worthy of note that our laws recognise a child born out wedlock and require the parents to make a reasonable provision for him or her from their estate. In that regards, section 7 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) on Right to Parental Property provides that no person shall deprive a child of reasonable provision out of the estate of a parent whether or not born in wedlock. This court is therefore of the view that if a child born out of wedlock is entitled to reasonable provision from the state of his or her parent, then it will unfair for that child to be denied the right to accept or recognise his biological father as his or her father. 24. In circumstances, Defendants argument that since the 1st Defendant is not supposed to marry but sit at his father’ house and give birth, the first and second children she had with the Plaintiff belong to her family or 2nd Defendant is untenable. This court holds that Plaintiff as the biological father of the children is the father of the children in issue. The court also holds that the 2nd Defendant or 1st Defendant’s father is not the father of children in issue as 1st Defendant wants this court to believe. 25. The next issue for determination is whether or not Plaintiff or 1st Defendant should be granted custody of the children in issue. From the evidence, the court found as a fact that the plaintiff and 1st Defendant are blessed with four children. *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 11 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* They are Asibi Atogboba Adongo aged 22 years, Francis Atogboba Adongo aged 16 years, Alamisi Adongo (Joan Awinepala Adongo) aged 7 years and Elizabeth Adongo (Akulga Elizabeth Adongo) aged 3 years. From the evidence, Francis has completed JHS, Alamisi or Joan is in class one at Ayopa Primary School. Elizabeth is yet to be enrolled in a school. The court also found as a fact that the first child or daughter (Asibi Atogboba Adongo) is 22 years old, she is married or an adult. Hence, she is not a child under the definition of a child under the Children’s Act. Thus, section 1 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) provides that for purposes of this Act, a child is a person below the age of eighteen years. The issue of custody to be determined in this case therefore relates to the last three (3) children, namely, Francis, Joan and Elizabeth. 26. Before we proceed to deal with this issue, it bears reminding that regarding issues concerning children, the Court must seek solely what is in the paramount interest of the child. Section 2 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) provides that: [t]he best interest of the child shall be paramount in any matter concerning a child. The best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration by any court, person, institution or other body in any matter concerned with a child. Section 2 of the Children’s Act is based on Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20th November, 1989 and entry into force on 2nd September 1990) which provides that, *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 12 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* [i]n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 27. Also, section 5 of the children’s Act 1998 (Act 560) on Right to Grow up with Parents, provides that: “No person shall deny a child the right to live with his parents and family and grow up in a caring and peaceful environment unless it is proved in court that living with his parents would—lead to significant harm to the child; or subject the child to serious abuse; or not be in the best interest of the child.” 28. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in its General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1) elucidates the concept which is said to be three-fold: Firstly, it is considered a substantive right in the sense that the child has a right “to have his or her best interests assessed and taken as a primary consideration when different interests are being considered in order to reach a decision on the issue at stake, and the guarantee that this right will be implemented whenever a decision is to be made concerning a child, a group of identified or unidentified children or children in general. Article 3, paragraph 1, creates an intrinsic obligation for States, is directly applicable (self-executing) and can be invoked before a court.” Secondly, it is considered as “[a] fundamental, interpretative legal principle” in the sense that “[i]f a legal provision is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which most effectively serves the *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 13 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* child’s best interests should be chosen;” and thirdly, it is “[a] rule of procedure” such that “[w]henever a decision is to be made that will affect a specific child, an identified group of children or children in general, the decision-making process must include an evaluation of the possible impact (positive or negative) of the decision on the child or children concerned. Assessing and determining the best interests of the child require procedural guarantees. Furthermore, the justification of a decision must show that the right has been explicitly taken into account.” 29. Being guided by the authorities above, the question for the panel is whether it would be in the best interest of the children in issue to grant custody of them to the Plaintiff or 1st Defendant. To resolve this issue, the panel is mandated by section 45 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), to—as a matter of paramount importance—consider the best interest of the child and the importance of a young child being with his mother when making an order for custody or access. To achieve this end the panel is mandated to also consider – “(a) the age of the child; (b) that it is preferable for a child to be with his parents except if his rights are persistently being abused by his parents; (c) the views of the child if the views have been independently given; (d) that it is desirable to keep siblings together; (e) the need for continuity in the care and control of the child; and (f) any other matter that the Family Tribunal may consider relevant.” 30. The starting point according to section 45 above is that considering the age of two of the children in issue, ordinarily, they ought to be with the 1st Defendant. However, that is a prima facie conclusion sustainable only when the other factors *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 14 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* or parameters contained in section 45 inure to the presumption in favour of 1st Defendant. The assessment of all the factors to determine what would be in the paramount interest of a child involves the exercise of judicial discretion after all the relevant factors have been considered: see: Re F (an infant) [1969] 2 All ER 766; Attu v Attu [1984-86] 2 GLR 743; and Young v Young [1993] 4 S.C.R 3 at para 71 per L’Heureux-Dubé J 31. The determination as to who should have custody of a child is merely an answer to the question: “what should be the best interest of the child”? It does not in any way terminate parental duties owed by the parent against whom the order is made: see Re W (Minors) (Residence Order) [1992] 2 F.C.R 461 at 465 per Butler-Sloss LJ. 32. From the evidence, the court found as fact that Plaintiff is a farmer and business man while 1st Defendant is also farmer and apprentice (leaning how to make soup). Alamisi or Joan and Elizabeth have been living with their mother. This court considers the ages of Alamisi or Joan and Elizabeth who are young females and the need for young children being with their mother. Accordingly, their best interest is for them to live with their mother. 33. The panel independently interviewed Francis who is 16 years and a male. From the interview or the panel's interaction with Francis the court found that he lived the greater part of his life time with his mother or in his maternal uncle’ house more than Plaintiff’s house. This court is therefore of the view that it is better to maintain the status quo and allow him to stay with his mother. After attaining the age of 18 years, he can decide to live with any of his parents. *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 15 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* 34. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the best interest of the children in issue in the instant case is for them to live with their biological mother or 1st Defendant. This decision is arrived at after thorough consideration of the evidence on record in accordance with the best interest of the children in issue, the Social Enquiry Report filed on 18/09/2024 as well as the authorities mentioned supra. Plaintiff’s Application for custody is therefore dismissed. However, we hereby grant custody of the children in issue to the 1st Defendant subject to the right of the Plaintiff to have access to them. Specifically, during school days the children will be with the 1st Defendant and during vacation the children will be with Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are advised not to influence the children against each other. The parties are also encouraged to communicate in order to enable them take good care of the children together. 35. We now move to determine whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of GHC57,600.00 which he allegedly spent in maintaining their first daughter from the Defendants. The Plaintiff claims he took care of their first daughter to the tune of GHC57,600.00. He argues that her daughter’s hand was giving in marriage without his consent and approval and that the Defendants received the dowry instead of him. The Defendant admitted receiving the dowry but says they gave part of it to the Plaintiff but he refused to accept it. The Defendants also maintained that they took care of the 1st child and that Plaintiff is not entitled to his claim. 36. From the evidence, even though Plaintiff claims he spent GHC57,600.00 to take care of his first child or daughter, he failed to convince this court how he arrived *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 16 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* at that amount. In any case, it is the duty of parents to take care of their children and even if the Plaintiff spent GHC57,600 on their first child he is not entitled to claim the said amount from the Defendants. In the circumstances, Plaintiff’s relief for refund of GHC57, 600.00 allegedly spent on talking care of their first daughter is hereby dismissed. Conclusion 37. Having examined the whole evidence adduced at the trial in accordance with above authorities, the Social Enquiry Report filed on 18/09/2024 as well as in the full consideration of the welfare of the children in issue, we have decided as follows: a. That the application for custody of the children in issue by the Plaintiff is hereby dismissed. However, we hereby grant custody of the children in issue, namely, Francis, Joan and Elizabeth to the 1st Defendant, the biological mother of the children. This order for custody is subject to change if it turns out that 1st Defendant is not taking care of the children well. b. That to ensure compliance with the dictates of section 5 of the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560) which grants children the right to grow with their natural parents, we hereby grant access to the children in issue to Plaintiff who shall accordingly have the right to live with the child not later than one (1) day into their vacation except that 1st Defendant shall return the children to the Plaintiff not later than one (1) clear day before school reopens. When the *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 17 of 18 *HWMNJ@DCFT/BO-19/09/2024* children are going to spend the vacation with Plaintiff or when the children are coming back to the 1st Defendant, the Plaintiff shall transport them. c. The Plaintiff shall be responsible for educational and medical expenses of the Children. The 1st Defendant shall also support the Plaintiff as much as she can in paying these expenses. The Plaintiff shall ensure that the children further their education even up to the University. The parties are also encouraged to communicate to enable them take good care of the children together. d. The Plaintiff shall pay maintenance Allowance of Six Hundred Ghana Cedis (GHC600.00) a month to the 1st Defendant for upkeep of the children in issue. This order is effective September 2024 and it shall be paid on the 30th day of each month except in February it shall be paid on 28th or 29th as the may be. e. The Plaintiff relief for refund of an amount spent on talking care of the first child is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (SGD.) H/W MAWUKOENYA NUTEKPOR (CHAIRMAN) (SGD.) MR. PIUS NGAARA (PANEL MEMBER) (SGD.) MR. JOHN AZAM (PANEL MEMBER) (SGD.) POGNABA CHRISTINA NGEH (PANEL MEMBER) *JUDGMENT-AZUBIRE ADONGO VRS. C. A. ATANGA & ANOR (SUIT NO. A8/02/2024)* Page 18 of 18