ODOTEYE vs. ODOTEYE [1982]DLHC952

Date	1982-05-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLHC952

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.

T A TAGOE FOR THE PETITIONER.

T K AGADZI FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1982]DLHC952
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ODOTEYE <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 519<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
27 MAY 1982<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

T
A TAGOE FOR THE PETITIONER. <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">

GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF GRIFFITHS-RANDOLPH J.<o:p></o:p>This suit
was commenced on 22 March 1977 by the filing of a petition, which contained
these averments:<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">“1. That
the petitioner, who was a production manager of Seraphim Textiles and the
respondent, a teacher of Ramana School and both of whom were Ghanaian citizens
and domiciled in the Republic, were lawfully married at the Presbyterian
Church, Adukrom, Akwapim on 1 February 1941; <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">2. That
thereafter, the married couple lived together at Takoradi, Half Assini and
Accra, and their union was blessed with four children, who were all alive, viz
Ruth Evelyn Odole, Angeline Marigold Odorkor, Mercy Odokai Mansah and Elizabeth
Odotso born on 30 July 1942, 25 January 1946, 11 October 1950 and 8 February
1952, respectively; and 3. That the parties had lived apart in Accra since June
1971; also that diligent efforts made to settle their differences had been
unsuccessful, with the result that their marriage had broken down beyond
reconciliation; and that there had been no proceedings in any court with
reference to their marriage.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4
April 1977, Mr Agadzi entered an appearance for the respondent; and in an
answer which was filed on 13 April 1977 the latter admitted the above averments
of the petitioner and offered the following explanation:<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">“(i) That
after the petitioner had left the Police Service they lived as man and wife at
their Osu estate house, which both of them ‘had contributed jointly to acquire
and maintain’, but that in 1967 the petitioner moved ‘to his new house’,
leaving her behind; and that ‘as a result of the intervention by friends” the petitioner
accommodated her in the out-house of the new home for some time, after which
she ‘went to live with him in the same bedroom but the petitioner refused to
have sex with the respondent’ while he ‘kept a girl friend by name Catherine
Magnussen, who cooked’ his meals; <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">(ii) That
on 8 June 1971 the petitioner locked her out and later he ‘requested the
respondent to bring her relatives and pack out of the house’, and she had to
move to a house at Asylum Down; and<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">(iii)
that “for most of the time that the respondent lived with the petitioner at
Osu, the petitioner gave the respondent and the children only ¢5 a month as
‘maintenance’, also that the petitioner who treated the respondent, ‘with
inhumane and extreme cruelty’, had committed adultery; and that since she took
up residence at Asylum Down, the petitioner had ‘refused or neglected to
maintain’ her and two of their children, who were being looked after by her.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a
reply filed on 9 May 1977 by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Tagoe, it was stated
that the respondent had not “contributed anything towards the purchase of the
petitioner’s estate house at Osu”, also that the petitioner did not move to his
other house without the respondent, who, in fact, lived with him there, and occupied
the out-house for only five days when there was some misunderstanding between
them; also that the petitioner had not treated the respondent cruelly; and that
he had neither locked her out of the matrimonial home nor asked her to leave;
but that she had left “voluntarily and without any just cause.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>