SAMUEL BAIDOO vs. BEATRICE BAIDOO

F.G. KORBIEH, J.A. A summary of the essential facts of the case leading to this appeal are that the parties were a couple who first married under customary law which they later converted into a marriage under the Ordinance on the 12th April, 2002. According to the petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to only as the appellant) the respondent/respondent (hereinafter referred to only as the respondent) had behaved in such a manner that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her. He gave two main reasons for not being reasonably expected to live with the respondent. The first was that the respondent failed to look properly after his three children and the second was that the respondent refused to look after his economic and/or financial interests whilst he was away in Jordan in the Middle East doing a U.N. job and rather used some of his assets to run her own businesses. He added that several attempts to reconcile the parties had failed. The respondent had filed an answer ...