TRUDY AMANOR vs. EMMANUEL AGYEMAN [2022]DLHC11656

Date	2022-01-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO: E6/11/20
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11656

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.

[2022]DLHC11656
																																						<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" >TRUDY AMANOR<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL AGYEMAN<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO: E6/11/20&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:
25TH
JANUARY, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The
parties in this matrimonial cause contracted marriage under the Ordinance on 22nd
December, 2017 at the Marriage Registry of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan
Assembly. The Petitioner is a Seamstress whilst the Respondent is a Mechanical
Engineer. The parties co-habited briefly after the marriage in Takoradi.
Respondent is currently resident in Spain. There are no issues in the marriage.
There had not been any previous proceedings regarding the marriage. <o:p></o:p>In
this divorce suit, the only issue to be determined by the court is whether the
marriage contracted by the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. On 13th
January, 2022 the parties filed terms of settlement relating to the instant
petition. They agreed as follows:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the parties having expressed their collective disinterest in continuing to stay
as married couples and to curtail a prolonged litigation, they have resolved to
have the marriage celebrated between them on the 22nd day of December, 2017
dissolved absolutely by the Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
it is agreed the neither party shall not make any financial claims against the
other party since financial provision to Twenty Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH
20,000.00) had already been agreed upon and same paid to the Petitioner by the
Respondent herein. <o:p></o:p>(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
is further agreed between the parties that Petitioner shall bear the cost in
this matter. <o:p></o:p>(d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It
is further agreed between the parties that the Court adopts the agreed terms as
the judgment of the Court between the parties in the petition filed.<o:p></o:p>Now,
the statutory prescription that the sole ground for granting divorce is when it
is established that the marriage has broken down irretrievably is a common
learning. A court must come to that satisfaction before decreeing a divorce.
The duty of the court in coming to that determination is well settled. The
learned authors of HALSBURY’S LAWS OF ENGLAND have written:<o:p></o:p>“On
a petition for divorce it is the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it
reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the petitioner and into any facts
alleged by the respondent. If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any
such fact, then unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage
has not broken down irretrievably, it must grant a decree of divorce.” (Vol
29(3) 4th ed Reissue, para 405).<o:p></o:p>The
language of Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) is that;
“Notwithstanding that the court finds the existence of one or more of the facts
specified in subsection (1), the court shall not grant a petition for divorce
unless it is satisfied on all the evidence, that the marriage has broken down
beyond reconciliation.”<o:p></o:p>Thus,
in ADJETEY VRS ADJETEY (1973)1 GLR 216 the court in applying the said provision
and noted thus:<o:p></o:p>“On
the proper construction of this subsection of the Act, the court can still
refuse to grant a decree even when one or more of the facts set out in S.2 (1)
have been established. It is therefore incumbent upon a court hearing a divorce
petition to carefully consider all the evidence before it; for a mere assertion
by one of the parties that the marriage has broken down will not be
enough.”&nbsp; ASH VRS ASH (1972)1 ALL ER 582
cited.<o:p></o:p>There
is no doubt that the parties have agreed to the dissolution of the marriage.
However, as required by law it was important for them to lead evidence to
satisfy the court that indeed the marriage has broken down beyond
reconciliation before the court can dissolve the marriage. The parties were
therefore invited to testify in relation to the breakdown of the marriage
despite the terms of settlement.<o:p></o:p>Petitioner
is alleging that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and this
was best told in her own words as follows:<o:p></o:p>“My
name is Trudy Amanor.&nbsp; I live at Apollo a
suburb of Apremdo near Takoradi.&nbsp; We got
married on 23rd December, 2012.&nbsp; Barely
five months after the marriage the Respondent informed me that he has been
informed by the sister to join her in Spain.&nbsp;
I was initially unhappy because we had just gotten married.&nbsp; Respondent assured me that he was undergoing
a one year course and after the course he will facilitate for me to join him in
Spain.&nbsp; I agreed and after he had left I
did not hear from him again.&nbsp; I did my
own investigations and got the Respondent’s number from his friend who also
stayed in Spain.&nbsp; After narrating my
concerns to him he gave me the Respondent’s number.&nbsp; He (Respondent’s friend) further told me that
the lady that the Respondent had described to me as a sister is actually the
Respondent’s ex-girlfriend who he had assisted to travel to Spain and that she
was the one who invited the Respondent to join her. I was shocked to hear this
story so I tried calling the number the Respondent’s friend gave me but anytime
I called a lady responded to the call.&nbsp; I
then stopped calling the number.&nbsp; I
received a call from the Respondent one day.&nbsp;
The Respondent told me on phone that he was no longer interested in the
marriage.&nbsp; I wasn’t </main>