KOFI vs. AGBOTSE [1959]DLHC2018

Date	1959-09-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1959]DLHC2018

SIMPSON J.

[1959]DLHC2018
																																						<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">KOFI <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">AGBOTSE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, HO]<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 305<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:
22ND SEPTEMBER, 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">

SIMPSON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SIMPSON J.<o:p></o:p>(His
lordship referred to the history of the case, and continued:-<o:p></o:p>The
District Magistrate decided to call evidence as to the customary law involved.
The witness, unfortunately, was not asked what customs are required to be
performed where the man and woman had already been living together, as they had
been in this case. The plaintiff stated that he was given no opportunity to put
any question to the witness, and the record appears to bear that out. The
District Magistrate was not justified, therefore, in rejecting the District
Court’s exposition of the customary law involved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
judgement the District Magistrate said, “There is nothing in the evidence to
prove that plaintiff was in fact married to the defendant.” From an examination
of the evidence of the witness called by the Magistrate, and the explanation of
the District Court, I take the view that basically the only requisites to a
marriage are the consent of the girl’s parents, and of the girl herself. I am
fortified in this view by the judgment of Deane C.J. in the case of Quaye and
Kwevi (Div. Cts. (1931)-(1937)), although that case deals primarily with Ga
customary law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
present case there is undoubtedly evidence on which, if believed, the District
Court could reasonable find that the parties were married. There is evidence
that the parties had been living together for some years, and that there was an
agreement to marry. The defendant admitted that she forced the plaintiff to
send head-wine to her parents. There is evidence that drinks, and £11s. 0d. in
cash, were offered to a paternal uncle of the defendant, and were accepted by
him in the presence of a number of people, including the defendant’s mother and
(according to one witness ) her father also. The plaintiff gave evidence of
collecting adultery fee from a person whom he does not name but who, from his
cross-examination of the defendant, appears to be called Da Kofi.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
District Court expressed itself as “satisfied with plaintiff and his witness
case.” The District Magistrate’s finding that there is nothing in the evidence
to prove that the plaintiff was in fact married to the defendant is in my
opinion untenable.<o:p></o:p>

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