SERWAA ALLOTEY-PAPPOE VS. JONATHAN ALLOTEY-PAPPOE

JUDGMENT:

This is a wife’s petition for dissolution of marriage. The Petitioner and Respondent are both Ghanaian citizens. The parties got married on 9th August, 2014. Under the Marriage Ordinance (CAP 127) at the Mount Zion Methodist Church, Sakumono, Accra. After the said marriage the parties cohabited at Kokomlemle and then at Amrahia, Accra. There is no issue of the marriage.

The Petitioner caused this Petition to issue on 22nd September, 2022, on the ground that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. She attributed the breakdown of the marriage to the unreasonable behavior of the Respondent and attempts at reconciliation by church elders, family and friends to reconcile them has proved futile.

The Respondents entered Appearance on 6th February, 2023. The Respondent filed an Answer and Cross petition on 3rd March, 2023. Petitioner filed a Reply on 6th April, 2023.

The pleadings in the suit having closed, the suit was set down for trial. The parties filed a Witness Statement, pursuant to the orders of the Court. The evidence of the Petitioner and Respondent was taken on 2nd November, 2023.

On the 18th of July, 2023, this Honourable Court made an Order for the Petitioner to retrieve her personal belongings from the matrimonial home. This exercise was successfully conducted with the assistance of the Deputy Registrar and the lawyers on the 27th of August, 2023.

In view of the Terms of Settlement filed, the only issue for determination is whether or not, the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. 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 as follows:

(1) For the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation the Petitioner shall satisfy the Court of one or more of the following facts:

(a)  That the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of the adultery the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent;

(b)  That the Respondent has behaved in a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent;

(c)  That the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition;

(d)  that the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition and the Respondent consents to the grant of a decree of divorce, provided that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and where the Court is satisfied that it has been so withheld, the Court may grant a Petition for divorce under this paragraph despite the refusal;

(e)  That the parties to the marriage have not lived as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the Petition; or

(f)   That the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences.”

Being a Matrimonial Cause, the Court is duty bound, regardless of the Terms of Settlement filed and in accordance with sections 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), to inquire into the marriage of the parties, by hearing their testimony, for a determination, as to whether or not, the marriage celebrated between the parties, has broken down beyond reconciliation.

From the evidence adduced before the Court by the Petitioner, there is no dispute that the parties had differences. Petitioner attributed the breakdown of the marriage to the unreasonable behavior of the Respondent. She testified amongst others that when she lost her keys to the matrimonial home the Respondent refused her access to the home.

Respondent would not pick Petitioner’s calls nor return the calls. On occasions that she could not enter the matrimonial home because she had misplaced her keys she was forced to sleep in their neighbour’s house and this has happened a couple of times. Her further testimony is that on one occasion she waited outside the matrimonial home till 10.30 pm and upon the Respondent’s return, an altercation ensued when she tried entering the house and so Petitioner had to leave to her parent’s house as the atmosphere was not safe. Sometime in March 2016 the parties were both exiting the house when the Petitioner accidentally banged their front gate. Thereupon the Respondent brutally assaulted her till some workers and neighbours who were around and witnessed the incident came to the Petitioner’s rescue. In February, 2019 the Respondent again assaulted her when their dog had given birth and in her excitement she took pictures of the dog and the puppies. Her further testimony is that after she moved to her parents’ house all attempts at reaching the Respondent and his family to sit to resolve the issues between the parties have not been successful.

The testimony of the Respondent amongst others is that the Petitioner is temperamental, quick tempered and quick to rain insults at him. Respondent says that prior to the final abandonment of the Petitioner leaving the matrimonial home she was in the habit of regularly stepping out or leaving the matrimonial home unceremoniously without informing him. The Petitioner leaves home and returns to the matrimonial home at ungodly hours. From 31st January, 2020 to 1st February, 2020 Petitioner stayed out of the matrimonial home without recourse, information and explanation to Respondent. Petitioner gets angry and is abusive whenever the Respondent tries to ascertain the whereabouts and movements details of Petitioner. Petitioner frequently levels unsubstantiated allegations to church leaders and neighbours and friends of the parties against the Respondent and the behavior of the

Petitioner had on several occasions embarrasses the Respondent. Respondent’s further testimony is that on several occasions that Petitioner was invited for enquiry into the wild allegations against Respondent the Petitioner would not turn up form the meeting but she would continue to make similar allegations against Respondent.

It is obvious that the parties had differences and all efforts to reconcile them proved futile.

By Section 2 (1) (f) of Act 367, where the parties to the marriage have not been able to reconcile their differences the marriage can be dissolved.

Upon the evidence adduced before the Court therefore, as I find that the marriage celebrated between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation. It is hereby decreed that, the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 9th August, 2014 in Accra, under the Marriages Act (CAP 127) be and is hereby dissolved forthwith. The Marriage Certificate is cancelled.

(SGD.)

 ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS)

JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.

COUNSEL:

PRISCILLA MAC-ANDOH WITH AKUA ADDO-YOBO HOLDING THE BREIF OF ABBAM FOR THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT