GRAY vs. GRAY [1971]DLHC9297

Date	1971-03-05
Suit No.	[1971] 1 GLR 422-428
Citation No.	[1971]DLHC9297

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

J. REINDORF FOR THE APPLICANT

E.N. MOORE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1971]DLHC9297
																																						<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" >GRAY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GRAY <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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">[1971] 1 GLR 422-428&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: 5 MARCH 1971<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J. REINDORF FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

E.N. MOORE FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">JUDGMENT OF
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">This is an
application for the custody of the children of the marriage between the
petitioner (the wife) and the respondent.&nbsp; On 11 November 1970, this
court, on the application of the petitioner, made an order in her favour
granting her the custody of Ian Andrew Nicholas Gray and Lucinda Helen Gray
forthwith until each reaches the age of [p.424] sixteen years. The respondent
now applies for custody of the same children.&nbsp; I shall treat this as an
application for variation of that order for custody.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The first
ground raised by counsel for the respondent is that the order of 11 November
1970 is wholly void, as it was made to subsist until the age of sixteen
years.&nbsp; Counsel has submitted that while the divorce petition has not been
heard, the court's jurisdiction is limited to making an interim order for
custody pending the hearing and determination of the petition. &nbsp;The basis
of this submission seems to be that where the petition is dismissed, the court
cannot make an order for the custody of the children. I&nbsp; think this
submission is based on a misapprehension of the powers of the&nbsp; court, as
the upper guardian of children (to use the Roman Dutch expression current in
South Africa), to make orders with respect to their custody and welfare.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">I shall
therefore consider the law in some detail. I shall commence by determining what
law is in force concerning matrimonial and allied causes in Ghana.&nbsp; It is
quite clear to me that before the Courts Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), the law
relating to divorce and matrimonial causes was the&nbsp; same as the law for
the time being in force in England.&nbsp; It was so decided in the case of
Ashong v. Ashong, Court of Appeal, 13 March 1967, unreported;&nbsp; digested in
(1968) C.C. 26.&nbsp; The Courts Decree did not alter the position.&nbsp; It
provided in paragraph 93 inter alia that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">"93. (2)
The provisions relating to Admiralty jurisdiction, infants, persons of unsound
mind, probate and matrimonial causes, and statutes of general application which
were in force in England on 24th July, 1874 and applicable to Ghana immediately
before the commencement of this Decree, shall continue to apply on and after
such commencement until such provisions are modified, amended or revoked under
this Decree."<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">There was no
such modification, revocation or amendment.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: normal; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The question
that arises for determination therefore is whether or not the Constitution,
1969, has made any difference to the legal position.&nbsp; There is no doubt
that the law, i.e. the English legislation on the matter and also local
enactments such as the Marriage Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.), as existed
before 22 August 1969, are part of the existing law under article</main>