DJARBENG vs. TAGOE [1989]DLHC579

Date	1989-11-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC579

AMPIAH J.

ARYEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1989]DLHC579
																																						<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" >DJARBENG <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;vs. <o:p></o:p>TAGOE <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1989-90] 1 GLR 155<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:
17 NOVEMBER
1986<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">

ARYEE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for ¢3 million damages for breach of
promise of marriage and ¢21.095.50 being moneys spent by her towards the
upkeep, maintenance and education of Nii Teiko, son of the parties. The
indorsement on the writ was subsequently amended to claim in the alternative
general damages of a reasonable sum for past maintenance, upkeep and education
of Nii Teiko, son of the parties from 1972 to 1983.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
paternity of Nii Teiko does not seem to be in dispute. The uncontroverted
evidence is that in 1972 while the plaintiff was attending the Kings College at
Kokomlemle, Accra she entered into an amorous relationship with the defendant.
They indulged in sexual relationship as a result of which the plaintiff became
pregnant. Five months later, however, the defendant left the country to pursue
further studies in the United Kingdom. While the defendant was thus sojourned,
the plaintiff gave birth to a baby boy on 24 December 1972; he was named Nii
Teiko.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the
claim of the plaintiff that before the defendant left for the United Kingdom, he
had promised to marry her. This promise according to the plaintiff was repeated
in several letters between her and the defendant while the latter was in the
United Kingdom and was reiterated by the defendant’s father when he saw her
parents to offer drinks and money. According to the plaintiff the defendant’s
father had even said that the defendant would take her to the altar, meaning
the defendant would wed her.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant had denied that there was any such promise to marry the plaintiff and
that even if there was, he was entitled to rescind such promise in view of the
plaintiff’s subsequent behaviour. In any case he states that he is still
unmarried and therefore there could be no breach even if there was a promise to
marry.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After the
close of pleadings, various issues were set down by both sides for
determination. I think, however, that the primary issue is, whether or not
there was any promise by the defendant to marry the plaintiff. It is necessary
for the determination of this primary issue to determine what sort of marriage
was intended, if any. In both the writ and the statement of claim, the
plaintiff did not describe the nature of the marriage which the defendant had
promised her. In her evidence however, an indication was given as to the offer
of drinks and money. The defendant does not deny that drinks and money were
sent to the relatives of the plaintiff. Whilst the plaintiff took this as a
step in the proposed marriage, the defendant explained that those things had
been sent to acknowledge paternity of the child. On this issue, I have no cause
to disbelieve the evidence of the defendant’s father, the first defendant
witness. His evidence was clear and unequivocal. He had been approached by the
parents of the plaintiff and informed about the pregnancy of the plaintiff,
claiming that it was the first defendant witness’ son then in the United
Kingdom, who had put the plaintiff in the family way. He had therefore written
to the defendant to find out the truth about the allegation. His son, the defendant,
had written to accept responsibility for the pregnancy, whereupon, he, the
first defendant witness, had gone to perform the necessary custom relating to
paternity; he presented the plaintiff’s parents with a bottle of schnapps and
¢24. He was emphatic that no promise to take the plaintiff to the altar had
been made to the parents of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff had stated
that the promise was made in the presence of her parents, none of her parents
testified in this case. Her only witness, Joseph Aryeetey Armah, the first
plaintiff witness, an uncle of the plaintiff, testified as to how the
plaintiff’s father had detected the pregnancy of the plaintiff and had sent the
latter to tell the defendant’s father about it. According to this witness, the
defendant’s father had sent bearers to send a bottle of schnapps and ¢24 to the
plaintiff’s father to acknowledge paternity of the child. He said however that
the bearer had told them that the defendant had agreed to wed the plaintiff.
This evidence corroborates the evidence of the defendant and the firs</main>