AWORTWI vs. NWANSU [1968]DLHC9277

Date	1968-12-10
Suit No.	[1968] GLR 1106
Citation No.	[1968]DLHC9277

ABOAGYE J.

K. K. DEI ANANG FOR THE APPELLANT.

J. K. ESSIEN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1968]DLHC9277
																																						<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" >AWORTWI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NWANSU<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

[1968]
GLR 1106&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:
10TH DECEMBER, 1968<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K.
K. DEI ANANG FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

J. K. ESSIEN 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">

ABOAGYE
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-top:.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:
0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:115%">JUDGMENT OF ABOAGYE J.<o:p></o:p></h2>In
this case the defendant appeals against the judgment of the District Magistrate
Grade I, Sekondi. granting the plaintiff custody of his two children by her.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, prison officer in Ghana,is a Nigerian and between the years 1960 and
1964 he had two issues with the defendant, a Fante. The children were aged
five-and-a-half years and four years respectively at the time the case was
heard by the district court in February this year. According to the plaintiff,
he and the defendant were married according to Fante custom and the children
were born in wedlock. The version of the defendant, on the other hand, was that
she lived in an illicit association with the plaintiff and had the two children
with him. An attempt was made by the plaintiff to marry her but it never
materialised. She had admittedly lived with the children up to the time
judgment was given against her. It is clear from the evidence of the defendant
that she resisted the plaintiff’s claim for custody of the children on the
ground that the plaintiff had shirked his responsibility as a father and
neglected to maintain the children.<o:p></o:p>After
hearing evidence on both sides and counsel’s addresses, the learned district
magistrate held, apparently following the headnote to the report of the
decision of Ollennu J. (as he then was) in In re Dankwa [1961] G.L.R. 352 that
“at common law a father is the natural guardian of his infant child and prima
facie has a right to its custody, even as against its mother.” He found that
the children had passed the weaning stage and so there was no danger in
separating them from their mother and, finding nothing
wrong with the plaintiff, he ordered that he should
have custody of the children.<o:p></o:p>Mr.
Dei Anang, leading counsel for the appellant, attacked the judgment of the
learned district magistrate on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>“(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; That it is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That the learned district magistrate
misdirected himself by failing to make a finding on the issue of whether the
parties in the suit were married or not.<o:p></o:p>(3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned district magistrate erred in law
in not directing his mind sufficiently to the central issue in a custody suit,
namely, the welfare of the children, the subject-matter of the dispute.<o:p></o:p>(4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned district magistrate erred in law
in omitting to consider the rights and duties of the plaintiff against the
background of the plaintiff’s personal law.”<o:p></o:p>