TENGEY AND MARY DOE vs. GEORGE DOE [1962]DLHC1722

Date	1962-05-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1722

OLLENNU J.

E. K N. OLAGA FOR E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1962]DLHC1722
																																						<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">TENGEY AND MARY DOE<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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;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:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">GEORGE DOE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 361<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 17TH MAY, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

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

E.
K N. OLAGA FOR E. N. P. SOWAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

NO
APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

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

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>The second plaintiff who claims to be a wife of the defendant by
marriage under customary law, has sued jointly with her father, the first
plaintiff, claiming maintenance for herself.<o:p></o:p>By customary law, a man is liable to maintain and house his wife
according to his station in life. This principle of the customary law has not
been disputed in this case.<o:p></o:p>The defendant admitted in his statement of defence that he was
married to the second plaintiff by customary law as pleaded by the plaintiffs.
He pleaded, however, that the said marriage has been dissolved, and therefore
his liability to maintain the second plaintiff has ceased. Upon that defence,
the first issue to be determined is whether or not the marriage between the
second plaintiff and the defendant has been dissolved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case came before the court on the 30th April; 1962, on a
summons for directions and for a date to be fixed for trial. There was no
appearance for the defendant on that day. The case was fixed for trial on the
15th May, 1962, and the court ordered a hearing notice to be served on the
solicitors for the defendant. A hearing notice was accordingly issued, but Mr.
Agadzi who has been appearing on behalf of the defendant refused to accept
service, but having been warned previously that since he has not obtained leave
of the court to withdraw from the case the court would regard the tender of the
notice to him by the bailiff as due service upon him, Mr. Agadzi attended court
on the 15th May, 1962; the case was adjourned to the next day, the 16th May, 1962.
When the case was called on the 16th May, 1962, Mr. Agadzi asked leave of the
court to withdraw from the case on the grounds that he had a telephone
conversation the other day with his client who is now in Nigeria, and that his
said client instructed him to withdraw from the case. He therefore asked leave
of the court to withdraw from the case. The leave sought was granted, and Mr.
Agadzi withdrew, but the case proceeded.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon the evidence before the court and the admissions made by the
defendant in his statement of defence, I find the following facts proved: The
defendant and his wife, the second plaintiff lived together in a house at
Christiansborg belonging to the defendant’s father. During the year 1960 the
second plaintiff was sent to Lome on two different occasions by the defendant;
on the first occasion to complete negotiations the defendant had started for
the purchase of a piece of land and to pay for the same; on the second occasion
to have a fence erected round the said land. In or about December, 1960 the
defendant requested the second plaintiff to go back to Lome and live there to
supervise the erection of a building upon the land. The second plaintiff,
however refused to go because upon her return from Lome the last time, not
having previously notified the defendant that she was coming, she had found
some clothes and other personal effects of some woman in their room, and had
some information from her children, and had suspected that the defendant wanted
her out of the way in order that he should associate with other women, and that
was why he requested her to go and live in Lome. Upon the second plaintiff’s
refusal to go to Lome, the defendant left the home on the 18th December, 1960,
and went and lived at the Ambassador Hotel with a certain woman for some time.
From the Ambassador Hotel he and the said woman went and stayed together in a
certain rest house for some weeks. He returned to the house on the 18th May,
1961.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On that day, the defendant came to the house with a truck and had
all the personal effects of the second plaintiff packed on it. He told her that
he had purchased a house for her at Kaneshie with the money with which he was
going to put up the building at Lome, and that she should go and live in that
house . . . The second plaintiff reported the incident to the father of the
defendant and upon the advice of the defendant’s father, she got on the vehicle
and was taken to a house in Kaneshie where she now lives.<o:p></o:p>