ABU-JAUDEH vs. ABU-JAUDEH [1972]DLHC2181

Date	1972-06-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2181

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

J. K. AGYEMANG (MISS ROSE OCANSEY WITH HIM) FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1972]DLHC2181
																																						<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" >ABU-JAUDEH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>ABU-JAUDEH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;[1972] 2 GLR 444<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
29 JUNE 1972.<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">

J. K. AGYEMANG (MISS ROSE OCANSEY WITH HIM) FOR
THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE DEFENDANT.<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">

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>On 28
August 1954, the principal parties to this suit were joined together in
matrimony at the Deputy Registrar’s Office, Kumasi Municipal Council, Kumasi,
as husband and wife. Fourteen years subsequently, and exactly two grown-up
children later, the husband disillusioned and bewildered, instituted
proceedings against his wife and another man (the co-respondent) on 12 March
1968 asking for a dissolution of their marriage on the serious grounds of
cruelty and adultery.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
violence of the allegations canvassed by husband and wife against each other in
their separate pleadings, it is easy to infer that that love which at the start
was so warm, so tender and so beautiful, and which drew husband and wife
together into wedlock-that love has now completely soured and is dishonoured,
tarnishing the alluring glamour of earlier years.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
embers of their earlier love having now so completely died out without the
slightest hope of a rekindling towards meaningful reconciliation, one would
have thought that both parties would have pressed for an expeditious loosening
of the bonds of their hapless marriage so as to be able to enjoy the freedom
they seem so much, now, to desire and which, I think, will do both of them
tremendous good. Instead, however, the wife respondent has stymied the main
action for divorce by raising the issue of jurisdiction as a bar to her
husband’s suit being heard and determined in these courts here in Ghana. Her
main ground is that the petitioner, her husband, is not truly and sufficiently
domiciled in Ghana to avail himself of this country’s matrimonial jurisdiction
in a suit for divorce.<o:p></o:p>Although
the raising of this preliminary point appears, at first view, to have been
engineered to delay, unnecessarily, the hearing and determination of the main
and substantive action for divorce, I would say that the objection was properly
taken because the validity of a decree of divorce is determined by the law of
the domicile of the contesting spouses. In Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier
[1895-1899] All E.R. Rep. 836, P.C. it was held as summarised in the headnote
that:<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">“According
to international law the domicil for the time being of married persons affords
the only true jurisdiction to dissolve their marriage. Such jurisdiction is not
conferred by a ‘matrimonial domicil’ based on a residence which, though not
‘casual or that of a traveller,’ is not of sufficient permanence to enable the
parties to acquire a true domicile”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine).<o:p></o:p>The
matter of the precedent objection above referred to was first raised before
Anterkyi J. who, after hearing arguments on both sides, delivered a ruling on
14 July 1969 unreported; digested sub nom. Najem (orse Abu Jaoudeh) v. Abu
Jaoudeh (1969) C.C. 134 in which he said inter alia:<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;“A preliminary point has been raised by Dr.
Ekow Daniels for the respondent, that, as the parties are Lebanese, their mere
residence in Ghana is </main>