KOFI KUTU GYAN vs. HARRIET BOAKYE-AGYEMANG [2023]DLHC16892

Date	2023-07-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO: E6/09/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16892

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL

EUNICE FRIMPONG ESQ.

[2023]DLHC16892
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

KOFI KUTU GYAN<o:p></o:p>

(PETITIONER)<o:p></o:p>

(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

[HIGH
COURT, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

</div>

COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

EUNICE FRIMPONG ESQ. FOR
THE PETITIONER<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM<o:p></o:p>

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE
BERNARD BENTIL <o:p></o:p>

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>

The Petitioner who lives
outside the Country appointed one Emmanuel Essuman of H/No. AN 232/1 Anomabo,
within the Central Region of the Republic of Ghana as his Attorney.<o:p></o:p>

Per the Witness Statement
filed by His Attorney, the Parties got married under the ordinance on 21st November, 2016, in Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly of the
Republic of Ghana. A copy of the marriage Certificate was attached and marked as Exhibit B. At the
time of the marriage, the Petitioner was a Medical Researcher whilst the
Respondent was a Civil Servant. There are no children between the Petitioner
and the Respondent.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

According to the Petitioner, immediately after
his marriage with the Respondent he had to travel to
the United States making it impossible to live together with the Respondent as
husband and wife. The Respondent joined the Petitioner a year after.<o:p></o:p>

From the testimony of the
Petitioner, the Respondent during their brief cohabitation behaved in such a
way that he cannot reasonably be expected to live with Respondent. The
Respondent has also been accused of deserting her matrimonial home for a
continuous period of Seven (7) years and has since failed to perform any duty
as a wife. The Petitioner stated that he has on a number of occasions reported
the conduct of the Respondent to her family members but nothing positive came out
of it. The Petitioner is of the view that the marriage is practically
non-existent.<o:p></o:p>

The
only relief the Petitioner is seeking is that the marriage be dissolved.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

The rule is that, unless
the relevant rules in Order 65 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I.47) (herein referred to as C.I. 47)
are complied with, a court is not competent to proceed with the trial or
hearing of a cause brought before it.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

(See Taylor
v Taylor (Supreme
Court, 12 November