TSOGBE vs. TSOGBE [1971]DLHC2170

Date	1971-05-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC2170

FRANCOIS J.

AMANEY FOR THE PETITIONER.

OCKIYAH FOR THE RESPONDENT-CROSS-PETITIONER.

[1971]DLHC2170
																																						<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" >TSOGBE <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;TSOGBE<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;[1971] 2 GLR 69<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:
27 MAY 1971.<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">

AMANEY 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.<o:p></o:p>The
question for a decision is whether a petitioner for divorce can be examined on
her adultery where a discretion statement has been lodged. This issue has no
doubt arisen because of the paucity of matrimonial causes originating in this
court with the correlated difficulties attendant on procedure. In fact, this is
the first divorce suit that has come before me in this court for the past three
years. The question is however resolved by reference to Rayden on Divorce (10th
ed.), and I regret I have to embark on a lengthy exercise. I start with the
following quotation appearing at p. 324:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“It is the duty of solicitors to ask the party
seeking relief in a clear and unequivocal terms if he or she has been guilty of
adultery. But it is frankness at the hearing which is required of the
petitioner; this consideration outweighs a failure fully to disclose acts of
adultery in a discretion statement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
of Gillooly v. Gillooly [1950] 2 All E.R. 1118n, C.A. where a complete
disclosure was made only after the case had been adjourned is in support of
this point. Rayden makes the added point that where discretion is sought the
petitioner should deal with the fact of her own adultery in the place in which
that fact chronologically appears. Again at pp. 616-617 the learned author
says:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
proper time at which to put in the discretion statement is at the point in the
petitioner’s evidence of the history of the marriage where the fact of his own
adultery chronologically appears. The Court of Appeal has deprecated the
practice of deferring the production of the statement until after the
completion of the petitioner’s evidence. (Lewis v. Lewis [1958] P. 193; [1958]
1 All E.R. 589, C.A.) The petitioner must himself give evidence on oath at the hearing
as to the contents of his own discretion statement, even though the suit is
proceeding on the prayer of the respondent’s answer, if the statement is to be
admissible as evidence of his adultery. (Filmer v. Filmer [1959] 2 All E.R.
219.)”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If, as
Rayden says, the question of the exercise of discretion can only arise where
the court is satisfied on the evidence that the case has been proved, there
clearly must be the evidence first for the rule to be applicable. In short, no
evidence, no discretion.<o:p></o:p>I believe
the problem has arisen mainly from the interpretation of rule 28 (5) of the
Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 619), which states:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(5)
Neither the fact that a discretion statement has been lodged or that such
notice as aforesaid has been given nor the contents of the discretion statement
or notice shall be given as evidence against the party lodging or giving the
same in any matrimonial cause or matter except when that party has put the
discretion statement or notice or the contents thereof in evidence in open
court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This rule
merely postpones the time when matters connected with the discretion statement
can be ventila</main>