OFORI vs. OFORI [1980]DLHC1615

Date	1980-06-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC1615

AMUA-SEKYI J.

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE PETITIONER.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1980]DLHC1615
																																						<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" >OFORI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>OFORI<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 745<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:
20
JUNE 1980<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">

KWAME TETTEH FOR THE PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p>

S. A. X. TSEGAH 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:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMUA-SEKYI J.<o:p></o:p>The
petitioner, Victor Kodzo Ofori, hails from Vakpo in the Volta Region; the
respondent, Victoria Dzigbordi Ofori, nee Affram, hails from Peki, also in the
Volta Region. Some time before 1964, the petitioner went to the United States
of America to study Engineering. After qualifying in 1964 he took up an appointment
with the I.B.M. Corporation of New York as a Computer Systems Engineer. From
time to time, the petitioner paid visits to Ghana. In 1971 while on one of such
visits, the petitioner, on 3 April, married the respondent under the Marriage
Ordinance, Cap. 127 (1951 Rev.) in Accra. Later that month, the petitioner and
the respondent left for the United States where they set up a matrimonial home
in Poughkeepsie, New York, in a house owned by the petitioner. In 1972, the
petitioner sold the house at Poughkeepsie and acquired another property on Long
Island where he resided with the respondent. Later that year, there was born to
the petitioner and the respondent a son, Wogbe, who is now eight years old. In
1974, a second son, Nuku, was born. He is now six years old. Both children were
born on Long Island.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
evidence that in 1975 the petitioner and the respondent visited Ghana with
their two children. In June 1978 the respondent came to Ghana for another
visit. She was accompanied by the children. After 6 July the petitioner also
came to Ghana unannounced. On 17 July he caused this petition to be filed
alleging that his marriage with the respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation,
and asking for divorce and orders for the custody of the two children. The
facts relied upon by him are that the respondent has behaved in such a way that
he cannot reasonably be expected to live with her, and that after diligent
efforts, he and the respondent, have been unable to settle their differences.
The petition was served on the respondent in Accra the next day. On 19 July,
she filed her answer to the petition.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
evidence of the petitioner that his marriage with the respondent was never a
happy one. From the very beginning, even their ordinary conversations tended to
end up in heated argument. He accused the respondent of habitual rudeness and
of being worldly in outlook. He says she neglected her household duties and
would not cook for him or see to the daily needs of the children. The
petitioner says he was obliged to take up these responsibilities himself, and
this affected his efficiency in his employment and caused him great distress.
The occasional visitors from Ghana who came to stay with them received scant
treatment from the respondent. One major source of disagreement was the
ownership of the matrimonial home on Long Island. According to the petitioner,
the respondent insisted that she be made a co-owner of the property. Finally,
he alleges that against his wishes the respondent decided to take up a job.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent admitted that she occasionally quarrelled with the petitioner, but
said that this was no more than in other marriages. She explained that she
asked to be made a co-owner of the Long Island property because as she and the
petitioner submitted joint income tax returns, she believed she was entitled to
expect this. She insisted that it was the petitioner and his relatives who
asked that she should go back to work after the children had been born.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
evidence of the respondent is that when she suggested that the property be
registered in their joint names the petitioner asked her if she knew any man in
Ghana whose properties were in the joint names of himself and his wife, to
which she retorted that they were not in Ghana and also that she was
contributing to the family budget. I take it that in the United States it is
not unusual for husbands and wives to own property in common. Even in this
country, joint savings are now common, and joint properties are not unknown.
And if, as the evidence suggests, the petitioner was able to get tax rebates by
submitting income tax returns in the joint names of the respondent and himself,
it is only natural that the respondent should feel insecure upon finding that
the property acquired on Long Island after the marriage, was in the sole name
of the petitioner. I see nothing worldly in the suggestion.<o:p></o:p><spa</main>