ANDREWS MINTAH VRS PRISCILLA BEMPAH
by HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GABRIEL NENE KWAO MATE TEYE
Jurisdiction
HIGH COURT
Judge
HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GABRIEL NENE KWAO MATE TEYE
Catalog Type
Case
Judgement Date
Mar 08, 2024
Summary
This case involves a divorce petition filed by Andrews Mintah seeking the dissolution of his ordinance marriage to Priscilla Owusu Bempah, contracted in 2017. The Petitioner asked the court to dissolve the marriage and make any further orders it deemed appropriate. The Respondent, through her lawful attorney, did not oppose the petition and expressly stated that she had moved on with her life and did not seek any financial settlement. Both parties participated in the proceedings through lawful attorneys and filed witness statements. The evidence showed that the couple had lived together in Ghana and later in Ireland, but the marriage deteriorated due to misunderstandings, lack of intimacy, and incompatibility. The Respondent eventually moved out, and the parties had lived apart for over two years. Efforts by friends to reconcile them were unsuccessful. The main issue before the court was whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation under Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). The court found that both parties admitted the breakdown of the marriage, had lived separate lives, and were unable to reconcile their differences. The Respondent’s clear consent to the divorce and the evidence of separation supported this finding. The court concluded that the marriage had irreconcilably broken down, particularly under Section 2(1)(f), which relates to failure of reconciliation efforts. It therefore granted the petition and dissolved the marriage.
Full Content
J U D G M E N T
The Petitioner, Andrews Mintah on the 29th day of September, 2023, filed the divorce petition against the Respondent, Priscilla Owusu Bempah also known as Priscilla Bempah praying the court for the following reliefs;
(i) That the ordinance marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent be dissolved by an order of the Court.
(ii) Any order(s) the court deems fit to make.
The Petitioner on the same day also filed Notice to appear by his Counsel Williwise A. Kyeremeh. The Respondent’s Lawful Attorney, Amoakowaa Joseph of H/No NT 138/4, Sunyani filed notice of appearance dated 2/10/2023.
On 11/10/2023, the Respondent filed her response to the Divorce Petition through her Lawful Attorney and stated in her paragraph 8 of her response as follows;
(8) “The Respondent says that she does not want any money or push-off from the Petitioner and prays that the marriage be dissolved as the Respondent has moved on with her life”
Meanwhile, the Petitioner per his Exhibit “A”, thus Power of Attorney (POA) filed on 2023 stated in the 2nd paragraph that;
“I hereby appoint Emmanuel Amoako Mintah o f H/No NT 191/4, New Town, Sunyani as my true and Lawful Attorney to file petition for divorce in respect of the marriage celebrated between me and Priscilla Owusu Bempah a.k.a Priscilla Bempah Mintah of Ireland in accordance with powers of Attorney Act 1998 Act 549 and also on my behalf to do the following acts or any of them…”
On 26/10/2023, the Petitioner through his Counsel, filed setting down for trial and subsequently filed the witness statement of Emmanuel Amoako Mintah, the Lawful Attorney of the Petitioner. While the Lawful Attorney of the Respondent, Amoakowaa Joseph filed her witness statement on 18/02/2024.
On the 9th of February, 2024, the petitioner’s lawful attorney was present in court as well as his counsel, Williewise Kyeremeh and the Lawful Attorney of the Respondent (who was not represented).
In his evidence to the court, Emmanuel Amoako Mintah (Lawful Attorney of the petitioner) stated that he lives in New Town, Sunyani and that he is a teacher by profession. That he knows the case between Andrews Mintah and Priscilla Owusu Bempah.
He also told the court that, the petitioner has given him power of Attorney to act on his behalf, Exhibit “A”.
That he filed his witness statement in compliance with the order of the court and rely on it as his evidence in chief.
He further told the court that he has tendered in the marriage certificate but that the original copy was lost, Exhibit “B”.
In cross examination, the Lawful Attorney of the Respondent stated that she is no more interested in the marriage to which the lawful Attorney of the petitioner admitted or agreed to it.
On her part, the Lawful Attorney of the Respondent, Amoakowaa Joseph told the court that she lives in Dormaa Ahenkro and that she is a Teacher. That she knows Priscilla Owusu Bempah.
She further told the court that, the Respondent has given her power of Attorney to her as per Exhibit “1”.
She said she knows Andrews Mintah and that she has filed her witness statement and rely on it as her evidence in chief.
In cross examination, she admitted that the petitioner, Andrews Mintah and the Respondent, Priscilla Owusu Bempah have not lived as and man and wife for two (2) years due to misunderstanding between them.
Furthermore, she indicated that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down for over two (2) years and that all efforts to reconcile them has failed.
In his witness statement, Emmanuel Amoako Mintah, the Lawful Attorney of the Petitioner said the Petitioner and the Respondent got married under the customary marriage on the 1st day of January, 2017 at the Tema Metropolitan Assembly with certificate number AOM/135/2017.
That the respondent is being sued in the petition per her Lawful Attorney, Amoakowaa Joseph, currently living in Sunyani and that both parties are aware of the lawful Attorneys of each party.
He said the parties cohabited in Takoradi, Dormaa Ahenkro and lastly Sunyani in the Bono Region of the Republic of Ghana.
That the parties as Ghanaians were living in Sunyani before they travelled outside Ghana to Ireland. He said the Petitioner was the first person to travel abroad and invited her to join him in Ireland.
That upon reaching Ireland, the Respondent became close to a classmate of hers, who had lived in Ireland for several years and started spending weekends at the residence of the said classmate.
That the Respondent started behaving strangely towards the Petitioner and eventually refused to do any household chores and also refused to cook for the couple when the Respondent was off duty.
Furthermore, he stated that, Respondent began insulting the Petitioner without any provocation and during social gatherings, the Respondent would declare to the hearing of the Petitioner that she was single.
That the Petitioner had been exposed to public ridicule and shame before his friends and neighbors as well as the Ghanaian community in Ireland who knows the parties herein as married couple and that all efforts made by the petitioner to reconcile the parties were met with abuses and insults.
That the Respondent has told the Petitioner through others that she was not interested in the marriage. The petitioner says the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.
Per the particulars of the breakdown of the marriage, the Respondent had refused to have sex with the Petitioner for almost two (2) years.
That the Respondent had moved to live in the house of the said classmate, called Rosina. Furthermore, the Respondent has told the Petitioner, through others that she was not interested in the marriage and that she had moved on with her life.
That the Petitioner has suffered psychological as well as emotional trauma, and that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot be expected to live with her, with the respondent’s behavior causing the petitioner much pain, anxiety, stress and embarrassment.
In her witness statement, the Lawful Attorney of the Respondent indicated thus per paragraph 3 of her witness statement;
“That the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent has broken down`beyond reconciliation and that; both parties are living separate lives and that the respondent does not oppose the request of the Petitioner for the dissolution of the marriage”.
Furthermore, she stated that “the respondent and the petitioner did not study each other well before getting into marriage and that the parties are clearly not compatible and it is better for the parties to go their separate ways to avoid something unpleasant in the future”.
That all efforts made by friends to cool down tension and the misunderstanding between Respondent and the Petitioner did not work.
Respondent does not want any money or “push-off” from the Petitioner and prays that the marriage be dissolved as the respondent has moved on with her life.
Under section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367) of Ghana, 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;
2 (1) (a) That the Respondent has committed adultery and that by reason of such adultery, the Petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the Respondent; or
(b) That the Respondent has behaved in such a way the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent; or
(c) That the Respondent has deserted the Petitioner for a continuous period of at least two (2) years immediate preceding the presentation of the petition; or
(d) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two (2) years preceding the presentation of the petition and the Respondent consents to the grant of a decrees of divorce; provided that such 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 sub-section notwithstanding the refusal, or
(e) That the parties to the marriage have not lived as man and wife for a continuous period of at least five (5) 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.
(2) On a petition for divorce, it shall be the duty of the court to inquire, so far as it is reasonable, into the facts alleged by the Petitioner and the Respondent.
Per the above facts as to the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation,
It is the finding of the Court that the Respondent has clearly stated through her Lawful Attorney that the marriage be dissolved as she has moved on with her life.
And per section 2(1) (f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, that the parties to the marriage have, after diligent effort, been unable to reconcile their differences.
It is also the findings of the Court that both the Petitioner and the Respondent are incompatible as all efforts made by friends to cool down tension and misunderstanding between the Respondent and the Petitioner has proved fiasco.
The Petitioner who has filed the divorce petition stated expressly per paragraph 19 of his witness statement through his Lawful Attorney that;
“The Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot be expected to live with her and that the Respondent’s behavior has caused the Petitioner much pain, anxiety, stress and embarrassment”.
The court is also of the considered view that the marriage was a still birth from the very beginning as from the records, the marriage was a rushed one, the parties as per the records never studied each other very well and therefore it is not surprising when the Lawful Attorney for the respondent admitted in her witness statement that the parties are not compatible.
The Petitioner and the Respondent are not really committed to the marriage, hence they both appointed Lawful Attorneys to present their interests for them.
I have come to the painful conclusion that indeed the marriage between Andrews Mintah and Priscilla Bempah has broken down beyond reconciliation.
Consequently, I decree that the marriage between the Petitioner, Andrews Mintah and the Respondent, Priscilla Bempah Owusu contracted under the Ordinance marriage Certificate on 21st March, 2017 at Tema Metropolitan Assembly with Marriage Certificate No: ROM/135/2017 is thereby dissolved.
The parties can go their separate ways.
There will be no cost awarded to any of the parties.
GABRIEL MATE-TEYE
(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Counsel for Petitioner: Williwise A. Kyeremeh
No representation for the Respondent.