ASUMAH vs. KHAIR [1959]DLCA1992

Date	1959-10-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLCA1992

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J.

GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.

OLLENNU J.

[1959]DLCA1992
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">ASUMAH <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KHAIR<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1959] GLR 353<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
27TH OCTOBER, 1959.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE J.A. AS C.J., GRANVILLE SHARP
J.A. AND OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal by the defendant, with a cross-appeal by the plaintiff, from the
judgment of a Commissioner of Assize and Civil Pleas, delivered in Accra on the
12th February, 1959. On the 13th October, 1959, we allowed the appeal, and we
dismissed the cross appeal. We now proceed to state our reasons for those
decisions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(His
lordship stated the facts and continued:—)<o:p></o:p>No
evidence was produced by the plaintiff to show that there was any abnormality
about the girl’s pregnancy which could account for a pregnancy lasting fifteen
or sixteen months. In these circumstances, the presumption is that the
gestation took the normal period of nine months, and that the evidence of the
defendant that the girl became pregnant in September, 1956 should be preferred
to that of the plaintiff. However, as will appear presently, it is immaterial
(for purposes of determining whether or not the defendant was married to the
girl according to customary law) whether the pregnancy took place before, or
after, the payment of the customary fees of marriage.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
learned Commissioner, dealing with the case for the defence, stated:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The main
ground of the defence is that the defendant admits he has a child by the
daughter Hannah Asumah but at the time the girl was his wife: it is for him to
prove that the girl was his wife having married her according to custom or
otherwise. But he has failed to prove that the necessary rites constituting
engagement and marriage have been done by him; and taking the evidence of his
own witness the girl herself, Hannah Asumah, it is clear she is not married to
the defendant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>While the
Commissioner properly directed himself on the onus of proof, we are of the
opinion that, upon the evidence before him, he erred in the conclusion which he
reached, viz., that the onus had not been discharged.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question of marriage vel non is a question of law, which must be determined
upon the facts before the court. Moreover, a person on whom the onus lies to
establish certain facts need not lead further evidence of the facts necessary
to prove his case if his opponent admits those facts, whether in his pleadings,
or in evidence given in-chief or in cross-examination. In such a case the party
must be deemed to have discharged the onus.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When
cross-examined on the customary law relating to marriage, the plaintiff made
the following admission:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“If a
girl is engaged to be married and the man had m</main>