CARR vs. CARR [1963]DLHC9282

Date	1963-09-19
Suit No.	[1963] 2 GLR 331
Citation No.	[1963]DLHC9282

PREMPEH J.

AWOONOR-WILLIAMS FOR THE PETITIONER

ARTHUR FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1963]DLHC9282
																																						<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" >CARR<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CARR<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

[1963]
2 GLR 331&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; &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: 19TH SEPTEMBER,
1963<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AWOONOR-WILLIAMS
FOR THE PETITIONER. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

ARTHUR FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm;line-height:115%">JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.<o:p></o:p></h2>On
the 2nd March, 1962, the petitioner filed in this court a petition for the
dissolution of her marriage with the respondent herein and for other ancillary reliefs.<o:p></o:p>After
the respondent had been served with a copy of the petition he filed a reply in
paragraph 1 of which he alleged as follows: “The respondent denies that the
petitioner and the respondent were lawfully married under the Ordinance and
will contend that the court has no jurisdiction.” When the matter came up
before me on the 23rd August, 1963, for argument to settle this preliminary
point, counsel for the respondent admitted that there was in fact a
solemnisation of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by a
minister of religion, but after referring to section 31 of the Marriage
Ordinance,1 he contended that the provisions of this section of the Ordinance
were not strictly complied with before the marriage was solemnised and that in
those circumstances this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
[His lordship then read the provisions of section 31 of the Marriage Ordinance
as set out in the headnote and continued:] After considering the effect of this
section and the submissions of counsel for the parties, I took the view that
this was a proper case in which I should admit evidence, and I ruled
accordingly and called upon the respondent to begin and to establish that this
court has no jurisdiction in the matter. In support of his contention the
respondent called firstly the Reverend Henry Vincent Acquaye Baddoo, a minister
of religion.<o:p></o:p>It
is not in dispute that in the year 1956 he was in charge of the Obuasi Circuit
of the Methodist Church and that he was the minister who celebrated the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent in that church, and there
can therefore be no question that his evidence in this case is very important
indeed.<o:p></o:p>His
evidence is to the effect that before he celebrated the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent, which he did on the 19th February, 1956, he
never obtained from any of the parties a registrar’s certificate, nor a licence
issued by the principal registrar of marriage, nor did he himself issue any
marriage officer’s certificate as required by section 31 of the Marriage
Ordinance2 He emphasised that since his ordination many years ago, he has never
himself issued a marriage officer’s certificate prior to the celebration of any
marriage he had solemnised.<o:p></o:p>It
is to be observed that according to Schedule 1 of the Marriage Ordinance, such
a marriage officer’s certificate is issued either on a Form I or a Form J.<o:p></o:p>Continuing
his evidence, this witness deposed that sometime before the 19th February,
1956, the date on which he celebrated the marriage between the parties, he
received a notice of the intention of the parties to go through a ceremony of
marriage by a letter which the respondent sent to him through the petitioner,
and that although he saw on a receipt issued to the petitioner that banns of
the marriage had been filed in a court in Kumasi, yet the registrar’s
certificate which he knew to be an essential requirement precedent to the
celebration of the marriage was not produced, but that he, nevertheless,
celebrated the marriage upon the word of the respondent (which he believed) who
told him that when he went to the court for the registrar’s certificate he was
not given one, but was assured that since he (the minister) had published the
banns in his church on three consecutive Sundays, he could celebrate the
marriage without that document.<o:p></o:p>He
agreed that after the celebration of the marriage he issued a certificate of
the marriage, a copy of which has been admitted in evidence and marked exhibit
2. Now in so far as his evidence concerns the issue whether or not he issued a
marriage officer’s certificate prior to the celebration of the marriage, such
evidence has been seriously challenged by the petitioner who has put in
evidence marked exhibit 1 a marriage officer’s certificate purported to have
been issued to her on a date prior to the solemnisation of the marriage. This
certificate is dated the 7th February, 1956, and although it is the duplicate
of a marriage officer’s certificate in the Form I in Schedule 1 of the Marriage
Ordinance, yet it bears the signature of the minister, and it is the contention
of the petitioner that although this certificate was only recently given to
her, yet the date thereon bears evidence that it had been issued prior to the
celebration of the marriage.<o:p></o:p>It
has been admitted by the minister who celebrated the marriage that the
signature on exhibit 1 is his, but he denied emphatically that he made and
sig</main>