DR. GILBERT ANYETEI vs. MRS. SUSSANA ANYETEI [2023]DLSC16110

Begin the New Legal Year with 20% off your subscriptions from now till 15th October, 2024. Redeem your discount now

DR. GILBERT ANYETEI vs. MRS. SUSSANA ANYETEI [2023]DLSC16110

Date	2023-03-02
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/67/2021
DL Citation No.	[2023]DLSC16110

• YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

• PWAMANG JSC

• OWUSU (MS.) JSC

• HONYENUGA JSC

• PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC

• GEORGE ABORGAH ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

• THADDEUS SORY ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2023]DLSC16110
 <div class="restriction-wrapper">
 <div class="container-lg">
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-lg-12 restricted-content">
 <div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
 <div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
 <img class=""
 src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
 alt="Subscription based content">
 </div>
 </div>
 <a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
 class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
 style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
 Login to Read Full Case </a>
 
 
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 <main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >DR.
GILBERT ANYETEI<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>MRS. SUSSANA ANYETEI&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT) <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.
J4/67/2021&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
2ND&nbsp; MARCH 2023&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL <o:p></o:p>GEORGE
ABORGAH ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

THADDEUS
SORY ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">YEBOAH CJ
(PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC, HONYENUGA JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU
(MRS.) JSC&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;PWAMANG
JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, on 10th June, 2009, the
petitioner/appellant/respondent (the husband) commenced divorce proceedings
against the respondent/respondent/appellant (the wife) in the High Court,
Accra. At the time of filing the case, the parties were both Ghanaians resident
in the Republic of South Africa. The marriage itself was contracted under the
Marriages Ordinance, 1951 Rev (Cap 127) on 24th October, 1990 in Accra. They
have two children between them who were aged 17 years and 11 years. The husband
was a medical doctor trained in Ghana and worked with the Ghana Health Service
briefly before re-locating to South Africa to seek greener pastures. The wife
is a biochemist by training and left Ghana to join the husband in South Africa.
Initially, the husband worked as a government medical officer in South Africa.
He subsequently embarked on further medical studies in South Africa and qualified
as a specialist gynaecologist. After that he set up private medical practice
there with a Ghanaian medical doctor as his partner. When the wife arrived in
South Africa, she first worked with a brewery as a biochemist but she later
resigned to operate a hairdressing saloon of her own in that country.<o:p></o:p>The grounds the husband pleaded in his petition
for the divorce were that the wife had been unfaithful and was also
disrespectful of him for a long time so the marriage was broken down beyond
reconciliation&nbsp; and they could no longer
live together as husband and wife. He said attempts had been made at
reconciliation but all failed. The wife in her answer filed on 4th August,
2009, while denying being unfaithful and disrespectful, counter accused the
husband of infidelity and mentioned the names of two women that the husband was
involved with outside the marriage and stated that he had two children with one
of the women. She pleaded that the husband had moved out of the matrimonial
home and was living with one of the women. She also said that efforts by
members of the two families to reconcile them failed even after they travelled
from Ghana to South Africa to meet with both of them. She consequently
counterclaimed for dissolution of the marriage, custody of the children and as
follows; <o:p></o:p>(iii) That
Respondent shall pray for 50% of all the properties and other items standing
between them as all were jointly acquired by the Parties during the subsistence
of the marriage.<o:p></o:p>After pleadings closed, the husband filed an
application to set down the cause for trial and at the hearing of that
application on 22nd March, 2010, the High Court judge adjourned the case to the
next day, 23rd March, 2010,&nbsp; for the
parties to attempt settlement and announce it if any. However, on the adjourned
date, there was no enquiry about the settlement but the judge straight away
decided to first determine the issue of dissolution of the marriage and to deal
with the ancillary reliefs at a later date. On that same day, the court took
down statements on oath from both parties who stated that the marriage was
broken down and they did not want any reconciliation. On those statements
alone, the judge dissolved the marriage, granted custody of the children to the
wife with access to the husband and adjourned for the trial of the ancillary
relief relating to distribution of property acquired during the marriage.
Whereas in the pleadings of the parties they stated details about their
marriage relationship from its blissful beginning to the difficult times, no
evidence was adduced on the marriage relationship which had lasted for about
twenty years. <o:p></o:p>We are not satisfied with the manner the High
Court Judge dealt with the relief of dissolution of the marriage. A court ought
not to appear to be in a hurry to dissolve a marriage as is evident in this
case and we wonder the reasons for the haste by this judge. Secondly, the law
is that the only ground on which a court would order the dissolution of a
marriage is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation,
particulars of which are required to be specifically pleaded and proved by
evidence adduced in court. It is therefore not sufficient for a judge to grant
a divorce just because both parties endorsed that relief on their pleadings.
Thirdly, evidence of the conduct of the parties during the marriage in most
cases is relevant for deciding how any property acquired during the marriage is
to be dealt with on its dissolution. Wher</main>