IN RE PRATT’S CAVEAT; BENTIL vs. PRATT

JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J. The applicant was on 22 May 1987 only a few hours away from going through a marriage ceremony with one Miss. Sabina Annan under the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.) when he was served with an order for interim injunction restraining him and the said Miss. Annan from going through with the marriage ceremony. Then also, on 28 May 1987 he was notified of a caveat filed by the respondent against the intended marriage. The caveatrix, who is also the respondent in this present application and whom I shall hereafter describe as the respondent, filed the caveat because she contends there is a valid subsisting customary law marriage between herself and the applicant which said marriage had not been dissolved in accordance with customary law. Before the court could on its own remove the caveat or summon the parties and require the caveatrix to show cause why the caveat should not be removed, the applicant himself brought this motion praying for the removal of ...