SELMA A.S SADEEN vs. SIAH THERON THOMPSON [2020]DLHC10752

Date	2020-07-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO: DM /018/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10752

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS)

BERNICE ADDAI -POKU ESQ. FOR PETITIONER.

[2020]DLHC10752
																																						<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" >SELMA A.S SADEEN<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SIAH THERON THOMPSON<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>BERNICE ADDAI -POKU ESQ. FOR PETITIONER.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

NO LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FOR RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

HER LADYSHIP
JUSTICE HAFISATA AMALEBOBA (MRS)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;BY
COURT (JUDGMENT): <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is a wife’s Petition for dissolution of
marriage. The Petitioner, a Ghanaian Citizen and the Respondent, an American Citizen
were married in the State of Cleveland Ohio in the United States of America in
Cuyahoga County, on 14th March 2008.&nbsp;
After the marriage, the parties cohabited in Cleveland, Ohio in the
United States of America. In the year 2013, the Petitioner returned to Ghana.
The Respondent currently resides in the United States of America. There is no
issue of the marriage. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Respondent who was served with the Petition personally
out of the jurisdiction, failed to file an Appearance and an Answer within the time
required by the Rules of Court. The suit was accordingly set down for trial.
The Respondent who was served with Hearing Notice out of the jurisdiction
failed to attend the trial. The Petitioner’s evidence was heard. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Though
the parties were married in the United States of America, as the Petitioner is
a Ghanaian citizen, this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 31 (a) of the&nbsp; Matrimonial Causes Act , 1971 (Act 367),
to determine this Petition.<o:p></o:p>By Section
40 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), the Laws of a foreign country are
presumed to be the same, as the Laws of Ghana. This presumption is a rebuttable
one. What this means in this case therefore, is that the grounds for which a
Court can dissolve a marriage under Ghanaian Law, are presumed to be the same
as the Laws of the State of Ohio, in the United States of America, where the
marriage of the parties was celebrated, unless contrary evidence is adduced to
rebut this presumption. As no contrary evidence has been adduced, this Court is
entitled to apply the provision of the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) to the facts of this case, in determining
whether the marriage celebrated between the parties, has broken down beyond
reconciliation<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Petitioner’s evidence was uncontroverted, as
the Respondent failed to attend the trial. According to the Petitioner, after
the marriage, the parties lived in her apartment until the Respondent who was then
unemployed managed to secure a job. According to the Petitioner, in the year
2011, she transferred her Mazda Tribute car to the Respondent, at the price of
Five thousand United States Dollars ($ 5,000.00), the said amount to be paid in
installments. The Petitioner said the Respondent never paid her for the said
car and that since the said transfer, she has never set her eyes on the
Respondent. The parties have since not lived as husband and wife. The Petitioner
therefore by her Petition, seeks a dissolution of the marriage celebrated between
the parties.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By Section 1
(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971 (Act 367), the sole ground upon
which an order for dissolution of a marriage can be made is that the marriage
has broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2 (1) of the said Act, however,
requires that the Petitioner prove one or more of the facts set out in the said
section. <o:p></o:p>By Section 1 (2) (b) of
Act 367, where the Respondent has behaved in a way that, the Petitioner cannot
reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent, the Court may dissolve the
marriage.