[2023]DLSC16110 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">DR. GILBERT ANYETEI<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-ansi-language: EN-US">(PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; color:#00B0F0">MRS. SUSSANA ANYETEI <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">(RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></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="MsoNoSpacing" style="border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/67/2021 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">DATE: 2<sup>ND</sup> MARCH 2023 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height: normal;tab-stops:286.5pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">COUNSEL</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua""> <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">GEORGE ABORGAH ESQ. FOR THE </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma">RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p></span></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="MsoNoSpacing" style="border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma">THADDEUS SORY ESQ. FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height: normal;tab-stops:82.3pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">CORAM<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:justify;line-height: normal;tab-stops:82.3pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC, HONYENUGA JSC, PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.) JSC</span><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua""> </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center; line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family: "Book Antiqua"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">PWAMANG JSC:-<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">My Lords, on 10th June, 2009, the petitioner/appellant/respondent (the husband) commenced divorce proceedings against the respondent/respondent/appellant (the wife) in the High Court, Accra. At the time of filing the case, the parties were both Ghanaians resident in the Republic of South Africa. The marriage itself was contracted under the Marriages Ordinance, 1951 Rev (Cap 127) on 24th October, 1990 in Accra. They have two children between them who were aged 17 years and 11 years. The husband was a medical doctor trained in Ghana and worked with the Ghana Health Service briefly before re-locating to South Africa to seek greener pastures. The wife is a biochemist by training and left Ghana to join the husband in South Africa. Initially, the husband worked as a government medical officer in South Africa. He subsequently embarked on further medical studies in South Africa and qualified as a specialist gynaecologist. After that he set up private medical practice there with a Ghanaian medical doctor as his partner. When the wife arrived in South Africa, she first worked with a brewery as a biochemist but she later resigned to operate a hairdressing saloon of her own in that country.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">The grounds the husband pleaded in his petition for the divorce were that the wife had been unfaithful and was also disrespectful of him for a long time so the marriage was broken down beyond reconciliation and they could no longer live together as husband and wife. He said attempts had been made at reconciliation but all failed. The wife in her answer filed on 4th August, 2009, while denying being unfaithful and disrespectful, counter accused the husband of infidelity and mentioned the names of two women that the husband was involved with outside the marriage and stated that he had two children with one of the women. She pleaded that the husband had moved out of the matrimonial home and was living with one of the women. She also said that efforts by members of the two families to reconcile them failed even after they travelled from Ghana to South Africa to meet with both of them. She consequently counterclaimed for dissolution of the marriage, custody of the children and as follows; <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">(iii) That Respondent shall pray for 50% of all the properties and other items standing between them as all were jointly acquired by the Parties during the subsistence of the marriage.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">After pleadings closed, the husband filed an application to set down the cause for trial and at the hearing of that application on 22nd March, 2010, the High Court judge adjourned the case to the next day, 23rd March, 2010, for the parties to attempt settlement and announce it if any. However, on the adjourned date, there was no enquiry about the settlement but the judge straight away decided to first determine the issue of dissolution of the marriage and to deal with the ancillary reliefs at a later date. On that same day, the court took down statements on oath from both parties who stated that the marriage was broken down and they did not want any reconciliation. On those statements alone, the judge dissolved the marriage, granted custody of the children to the wife with access to the husband and adjourned for the trial of the ancillary relief relating to distribution of property acquired during the marriage. Whereas in the pleadings of the parties they stated details about their marriage relationship from its blissful beginning to the difficult times, no evidence was adduced on the marriage relationship which had lasted for about twenty years. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">We are not satisfied with the manner the High Court Judge dealt with the relief of dissolution of the marriage. A court ought not to appear to be in a hurry to dissolve a marriage as is evident in this case and we wonder the reasons for the haste by this judge. Secondly, the law is that the only ground on which a court would order the dissolution of a marriage is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, particulars of which are required to be specifically pleaded and proved by evidence adduced in court. It is therefore not sufficient for a judge to grant a divorce just because both parties endorsed that relief on their pleadings. Thirdly, evidence of the conduct of the parties during the marriage in most cases is relevant for deciding how any property acquired during the marriage is to be dealt with on its dissolution. Wher