AFIA BENEWAA KOMMEH (PETITIONER) vs. ROCKY PAA KWESI KOMMEH (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7055

Date	2019-07-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E6/22/15
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7055

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.

MISS AMA ADOMAKO KWAKYE. FOR PETITIONER.

J.E. ABEKAH ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.

[2019]DLHC7055
																																						<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" >AFIA BENEWAA KOMMEH<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ROCKY PAA KWESI KOMMEH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

SUIT
NO. E6/22/15&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 JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MISS
AMA ADOMAKO KWAKYE. FOR PETITIONER. <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">

J.E. ABEKAH ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE RICHARD ADJEI – FRIMPONG J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>In this divorce suit like in many
others, this court is mainly to determine whether the marriage contracted by
the parties has broken down irretrievably, why it has come to be so and then
consider the ancillary matters of property and financial settlements.<o:p></o:p>As I can see, the parties in their
pleadings and their evidence appear readily amenable to the dissolution of the
marriage. This however is not dispositive of the issue. In the case of ASH VRS
ASH (1972)1 ALL ER 582 where the parties were at issue as to the breakdown of
their marriage, BAGNALL J in applying Section 2(1) of the English Divorce
Reform Act the language of which was the same as the Section 2(3) of our
Matrimonial Causes Act posed the question simply thus:<o:p></o:p>“Am
I satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down
irretrievably.”<o:p></o:p>Then he went on to answer thus:<o:p></o:p>“Simple
assertion either way it seems to me cannot suffice. What I have to do is to
examine the whole evidence placed before me including and giving not
inconsiderable weight to the assertions of the parties and make up my mind,
quite generally whether it can be said in spite of the behavior of the wife the
marriage has not broken dawn irretrievably.” <o:p></o:p>The decision in ASH VRS ASH has been
applied in some local cases like ADJETEY VRS ADJETEY (1973)1 GLR 216.Learned
Counsel for the petitioner has rightfully cited some of the cases and I do not
intend to rehearse the point further.<o:p></o:p>The parties got married under the
Ordinance in April 1999 at the Donewell Methodist Church, Effiakuma, Takoradi.
They cohabited at Takoradi and Sefwi Dwinase where the respondent currently
resides. The petitioner now resides in Kumasi with the only child of the marriage
Alexander Neey Braoye Kommeh aged 5.<o:p></o:p>The evidence clearly shows that the
parties have lived separate lives for the past five years. There have over the
period not been any conjugal relations. It does not appear that the situation
had been any better prior to that. The petitioner testified that attempts by
their two families to settle the differences have not been successful. The
respondent said the petitioner has returned the items used to perform the
marriage rites. There is clearly no intention to send the items back. By the
return of the items, he takes it that the petitioner has ceased to be his wife.
She presently resides in Kumasi and he, in Sefwi Dwinase. There is no evidence
that their paths cross anywhere. There is also no evidence of a cordial communication
between them. I observed their countenances when they appeared in court and I
did not read any glimpses of affection between them. The above coupled with
their open readiness to end the 20-year old marriage leaves me in no indecision
at all that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and so I hold.<o:p></o:p>But how did they get here?<o:p></o:p>The petitioner pleads unreasonable
behavior on the part of the respondent. She gives particulars of this behavior
as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the respondent sometimes sleeps outside the matrimonial home without the
consent of the petitioner to the pain and chagrin of the petitioner.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the respondent has been flirting with his paramours to the pain of the
petitioner.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the respondent often sleeps with one of his numerous paramours in the
matrimonial bed whenever the petitioner travels especially one Vivian Diaba to
the pain and, embarrassment and anguish of the petitioner.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;d)