APPOMASU vs. BREMAWUO AND ANOTHER [1979]DLCA1033

Date	1979-05-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLCA1033

APALOO C.J.

ANIN J.A

ANTERKYI. J.

AFRIFAH FOR THE APPELLANT.

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1979]DLCA1033
																																						<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" >APPOMASU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BREMAWUO AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 278<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:
3 MAY 1979<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">

AFRIFAH FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

APALOO C.J., ANIN J.A. AND ANTERKYI. J.
<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Some time
prior to June 1947, the first respondent and the late Kwasi Nimo contracted a
marriage according to customary law. They were both apparently non-practising
Roman Catholics. But as customary marriage was potentially polygamous, it was
not recognized by the church, at any rate, for the purpose of receiving the
holy sacrament.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence given by the first respondent suggests that both spouses were anxious
to receive holy communion but they could not do this unless their marriage was
solemnized or at least blessed by the church. On 21 June 1947, they went
through a ceremony of marriage at the Roman Catholic Cathedral, Kumasi. The
marriage was celebrated by the Reverend Father Meenswen. He then made a record
of what he performed in the church’s official register. This was produced in
evidence. It seems plain that the result of the celebration of this marriage in
church was to convert a polygamous marriage to a monogamous one.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Reverend Father described the nature of the ceremony he performed in the church
register. To this description and its significance, I will return. After this,
the parties seemed to have kept the faith and lived together in holy matrimony
until the death intestate of the husband on 25 July 1973. This union was
blessed with an only son, Kofi Aidoo. He is the second respondent in this
appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A number
of decided cases show that there are, broadly speaking, two types of marriages
recognised by law in this country. They are the pure customary polygamous union
and the monogamous one: see Setse v. Setse [1959] G.L.R. 155, Graham v. Graham
[1965] G.L.R. 407 and In re Appiah (Decd.); Yeboah v. Appiah [1975] 1 G.L.R.
465. The latter can be sub-classified into two groups, namely, firstly,
monogamous marriage celebrated in church and in accordance with religious rites
without reference to the statutory law of marriage, and the other celebrated in
conformity with the statutory requirement is of the Marriage Ordinance, Cap.
127 (1951 Rev.). The effect of the latter marriage is to displace the rules of
succession of intestates who are otherwise subject to customary law. The former
does not and although monogamous in intent, has no impact as such on the
customary rules of succession.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
dispute which culminated in this appeal arose, because the husband died intestate
and being a person subject to customary law, his property would devolve
according to such law unless it is shown that the ceremony of marriage which he
and the first respondent went through was a marriage under the Marriage
Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev). Section 48 of cap. 127 in large measure, alters
the rules of the customary law of succession of intestates who contract that
form of marriage. Section 31 of Cap. 127 forbids the celebration of a marriage
under that legislation unless the parties deliver to the officiating minister,
either a registrar’s certificate or two marriage officer’s certificates in a
prescribed form.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order
that persons who contemplate an “Ordinance marriage” may appreciate the legal
consequence which flow on the devolution of their self-acquired properties in
the event of one of the spouses dying intestate, section 48 (3) of Cap. 127
imposed a mandatory duty on the registrar or marriage officer “to explain to
both parties the effect of these provisions as to succession to property as
affected by marriage.” There are other statutory requirements which if duly
complied with should facilitate the proof of a marriage under the Ordinance. It
is not necessary to burden this judgment by reproducing the various sections
verbatim but a reference to their requirements should suffice.<o:p></o:p>