ATTAH vs. ANNAN [1975]DLHC9276

Date	1975-03-03
Suit No.	[1975] 1 GLR 366
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC9276

BAIDOO J.

AMPIAH FOR THE APPELLANT

SAMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1975]DLHC9276
																																						<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" >ATTAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANNAN<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, CAPE COAST]<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">

[1975]
1 GLR 366&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
3RD MARCH, 1975<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AMPIAH
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">

SAMPSON 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">

BAIDOO 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>JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff married one
Adjoa Twumasi, a granddaughter of the defendant under customary law. For some
three years they lived together happily and had two issues, one of whom
eventually fell ill and was taken to hospital by the plaintiff for treatment.
The child unfortunately died the next day and because a priestess has told the
plaintiff and his wife that six witches were haunting the sick child, the
plaintiff’s wife, suspecting her grandmother to be a witch, went and beat her
up. An arbitration subsequently held on the conduct of the wife found as a fact
that the said priestess never mentioned the assaulted grandmother’s name nor
disclosed the identity of any of the persons she professed to have found to be
witches and so the plaintiff’s wife Adjoa Twumasi was pronounced guilty of
unwarranted assault.<o:p></o:p>As
far as the plaintiff was concerned, there was no trouble or dispute of any sort
between him and his wife. Furthermore, he was not proved to have been guilty of
any misbehaviour towards any member of his wife’s family or relations yet the
defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) purported to dissolve the plaintiff’s marriage
by preventing Adjoa Twumasi from continuing to live with the plaintiff or performing any
further marital duties to the plaintiff as is required of her even though the
wife and even the assaulted grandmother, according to the plaintiff, were
opposed to the dissolution of the marriage proposed by the defendant. According
to the plaintiff, the arbitrators, who probed certain charges preferred against
him by his wife’s father, dismissed all the said charges except one accusing
him of not attending church, but that was held to be no ground for dissolving
their marriage.<o:p></o:p>Despite
all this, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff a letter by which he purported
to dissolve the marriage between the plaintiff and Adjoa Twumasi, his
granddaughter. He then dispatched to the plaintiff, a bearer with the said note
plus the sum of ¢9.50 which he stated was dissolution fee. The plaintiff
refused to accept the money contending that it was contrary to custom to
dissolve a marriage without first holding an arbitration between the spouses to
find out whether any of them had committed any marital offence. The defendant
persistently refused to permit an arbitration to be held over the matter and,
absolutely disgusted over the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff filed this action
in the District Court Grade II, Asikuma claiming:<o:p></o:p>“¢500.00 damages from the
defendant for unlawfully, unreasonably and forcibly divorcing the plaintiff’s
lawful marriage with his defendant’s granddaughter Adjoa Twumasi with whom
plaintiff has no case.”<o:p></o:p>In
his evidence at the trial the defendant did not deny sending a letter per
bearer to terminate the marriage. The relevant portion of his evidence was as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“The
plaintiff has behaved in a way I do not like and as a result I have taken my granddaughter,
his wife, from him, that is, have dissolved the marriage. (1) The plaintiff
does not speak the truth.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;(2)&nbsp; He was able to tell the father of his wife
that he would pass him through certain channel. (3) What I&nbsp;&nbsp; have not said, the plaintiff would insist
that I had said it. (4) At one time before an arbitration, he asked his witness
to stop giving evidence, so that he could explain matters, but when he was
questioned about this assertion, he denied having said anything to that effect,
and stated that he only blew away something from his cloth. Such a lie also
surprised me. When his child died, he said the death was caused by members of
the wife’s family, because of this the grandmother is now not on speaking terms
with the wife, her granddaughter. I asked the plaintiff to let me see the
fetish priest wh</main>