GENFI II vs. GENFI II [1964]DLSC1901

Date	1964-11-04
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLSC1901

SOWAH J.

G. W. DAVEY FOR THE PETITIONER.

SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1964]DLSC1901
																																						<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" >GENFI II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GENFI II <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 548<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:
4 NOVEMBER 1964.<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">

G. W. DAVEY FOR THE PETITIONER.<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:0in 0in 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner asks for a declaration that the marriage celebrated between the
respondent and himself is null and void on the grounds that at the date of the
celebration of the marriage there was a valid and lawful marriage subsisting
between himself and one Rose Amoah.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent disputed the averment in the petition and herself cross-petitioned
for the dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
petitioner, who struck me as a person of intelligence with a considerable grasp
of the English language, told the court that on 7 November 1959 he went through
a form of marriage with the respondent, the former Cecilia Akoto, at the
offices of the then Municipal Council. He stated that the provisions of the
Marriage Ordinance,1 which are normally read to persons entering into matrimony
before the registrar were read to him before the marriage. He also told the
court that he had already been married under customary law in 1950 to one Rose
Amoah with whom he has had children and who continued to bear him children
after the Ordinance marriage; this customary union not having been dissolved.
In addition to the wife he kept a concubine who was also bearing him children.
According to him, the respondent and her father were aware of all of these
matrimonial incumbrances.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In spite
of the petitioner’s legal incapacity in this respect, the respondent requested
him to go through a form of marriage, which I have no doubt in my mind the
petitioner knew to be bigamous and offended against the law of the country. He
tendered a note to show that the respondent arranged what he termed a roster
for the wives of the petitioner including herself. This note was tendered to
show that the respondent was not only aware of the presence of a wife and
concubine but also actively connived at a flagrant disregard of the law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
petitioner was vigorously cross-examined by counsel for the respondent in order
to show that the respondent was not aware at the date of the performance of the
marriage of the subsistence at that date of the customary marriage to Rose
Amoah and that the petitioner in fact made representations that the marriage
between Rose Amoah and himself had been dissolved.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Unfortunately
the respondent has declined to offer evidence in support of her cross-petition
and the allegations contained therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I am
constrained therefore to ignore the allegations in the petition and to accept
the answers given in cross-examination in denial of the averments in the
respondent’s answer and cross-petition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Though I
have borne in mind the possibility of collusion between the parties in view of
the respondent’s conduct in not offering evidence, yet I find the evidence in
support of the petitioner’s petition strong.<o:p></o:p>