MARIAM OBENG MINTAH (PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT) vs. FRANCIS AMPENYIN [2010]DLCA6228

Date	2010-11-18
Suit No.	H1/79/08
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6228

G. M. QUAYE J.A (PRESIDING)

V. D. OFOE J.A

K. A. ACQUAYE J.A

MR. J. E. K. ABEKAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR. KOJO KUM FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2010]DLCA6228
																																						<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" >MARIAM OBENG
MINTAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS
AMPENYIN<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">H1/79/08&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: 18TH NOVEMBER 2010<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MR. KOJO KUM FOR
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">G. M. QUAYE J.A
(PRESIDING), V. D. OFOE J.A, K. A. ACQUAYE J.A<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>OFOE,
J.A <o:p></o:p>The
parties fell in love in on around the month of October, 2000. By the second
year of their relationship the friendship had fallen on rocks. It is the case
of the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this suit, that in the course of
their concubinage the defendant’ ie the respondent in this appeal, promised to
marry her. Believing in this promise, she served him as a wife will do and
spent all her time and money on him, only for the respondent to breach the
promise. She was a business woman dealing in wood products and of good
financial standing but had lost everything in this relationship which she was
made to believe will end up in a marriage. She gave the income from their joint
business to the respondent, part of which they used in improving upon the respondents
uncompleted building. On his instructions, she even had to move from her rented
accommodation into respondent’s uncompleted house. For this breach of promise
to marry her she sued him in the Sekondi High Court, claiming the following: <o:p></o:p>a.
Damages for Breach of Promise to marry. <o:p></o:p>b.
Damages for the inconvenience and loss of time wasted on the Defendant. <o:p></o:p>c.
An Order for the payment of the sum of ¢1,054,500 being total expenses incurred
on delivery and after delivery at the Effie Nkwanta Hospital. <o:p></o:p>d.
An order for the payment of lumpsum as send-off for the plaintiff. <o:p></o:p>e.
An order for the payment of a Lumpsum for resettlement of the Plaintiff
including alternative accommodation etc. <o:p></o:p>f.
An order for the Payment of all arrears monthly maintenance for the Plaintiff
being ¢150,000.00 per month from December 2002. <o:p></o:p>g.
An order for the division of house at Ntankorful as joint property or payment
of Plaintiff’s share out of the house. <o:p></o:p>The
respondent denied having made any promise to appellant to marry her and denied
any contribution made by the appellant to the construction of the building,
House No. 26, West Fijai Layout Block F, Ntankorful Sekondi. <o:p></o:p>After
full trial, the trial High Court Judge dismissed all her claims but rather
granted respondent his counterclaim to recover possession of the House on plot
No. 26 West Fijai Layout Block F. Ntankorful, Sekondi, and ordered the
appellant to return the pumping machine, louvre frames, standing fan, gas
cylinders, photographic camera, to the respondent. <o:p></o:p>Aggrieved
at this judgment, she appealed on three (3) grounds. That <o:p></o:p>a)
The judgment was against the weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p>b)
The learned judge confused the issues of “promise to marry” with the issue of
valid customary marriage and thereby wrongly treated the issues of promise to
marry hence reaching a wrong conclusion. <o:p></o:p>c)
The learned judge erred in his consideration on both the law and evidence on
the contribution of the plaintiff towards the development of the House at
Ntank</main>