JACOB AKUTU VRS ANTOINETTE AGUDZEMABE

JUDGMENT

The Petitioner on the 28/10/22 presented the instant case against the Respondent for the following reliefs;

a)     An order for the dissolution of the ordinance marriage between the parties contracted on the 19/03/2016

b)    Any other orders that the Court deems fit and appropriate.

In the accompanying depositions, the Petitioner states that, the parties got married on the 19/03/2016 both under customary/law and ordinance in a ceremony held at the District Court, Ho in the Volta Region.

Thereafter, the parties co-habited variously at Logba, Juapong, Accra, Have etc. They do not have any issue to the marriage. According to the Petitioner, he is a Teacher whilst Respondent is a Trader. That due to the nature of their work, they lived apart but they used to visit each other until Respondent stopped visiting him. He continued that, their marital life has not been smooth, it was characterised by challenges as Respondent does not care, and is not loving. Efforts at settlement of their differences failed. The couple have not lived together or had sex since 2020 till date. The Petitioner suspects that the Respondent is in another relationship. He concluded that Respondent had demonstrated that she is no longer interested in the marriage. That there is no communication between the parties. Thus, the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and so prays per his reliefs.

Upon service, the Respondent entered an appearance personally on the 9/11/2022, and on the same day filed an Answer and Cross-Petition in response to Petitioner’s claims.

In answer, she said, the Petitioner constructively sacked or ejected her for which reason they have not lived as man and wife since the year 2020. She accused the Petitioner of not doing much to ensure that the marriage work. She had had to maintain herself all these while and cannot pretend to be a wife to Petitioner. That their differences are irreconcilable. She cross-petition as follows;

CROSS-PETITION

a)     Dissolution of the marriage.

b)    Arrears of maintenance since 2020 to date.

c)     Adequate compensation or alimony.

d)    Cost.

e)     Any other reliefs/remedies that the Court deems fit and appropriate.

Court on the 22/11/2022 set the cause down for trial and directed the parties to file witness statements and relevant documents each intend to rely on at the trial.

The Petitioner on the 8/12/2022 filed his witness statement at 1:15 pm to which he attached Exhibit A, their Marriage Certificate.

At 1:39 pm on the same day, the Respondent lodged her witness statement through a Lawful Attorney, Courage Blackus Asempa. Power of Attorney attached as Exhibit 1.

The Court conducted Case Management Conference on the 21/12/2022 and the cause was set down for hearing on the 6/02/2023. It became clear that the Attorney had no legal representation.

The parties attended the Court and the Petitioner testified and relied on his witness statement. The witness statement which was adopted was a verbatim repetition of his petition and no more. Essentially, he accused the Respondent for not being caring and loving; and suspect her to be involved with another man even though their marriage subsists.

He was cross examined as follows;

Q:       From your statement, you and Respondent separated in 2020?

A:           Yes.

Q:       Did you make any effort to reconcile the two of you?

A:       Yes, but the attempt on several occasions did not yield any progress.

Attorney for Respondent – End of cross examination: I do not have any further questions for the Petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner announced the end of his case.

The Court proceeded to hear evidence from the attorney of the Respondent. He relied on his witness statement filed before the Court. Then again, the witness statement presented is a repetition of the defence and cross-petition filed, what is called word to word.

The following questions were asked in cross-examination by Counsel for Petitioner;

Q:       You said Respondent is at Accra.

A:        Yes.

Q:       I put it to you that the Petitioner did not sack the Respondent as you claim.

A:       He did not eject her physically by the conversation they had.

Q:       The parties have not lived as husband and wife since 2020?

A:        Yes.

Q:       You also said the parties despite all efforts have not been able to reconcile not so?

A:       It is so.

Q:       Do you still insist that Petitioner to pay maintenance, compensation, and alimony to Respondent.

A:       No.

Q:       I put it to you that this marriage has broken down because of Respondent and not the Petitioner.

A:       Yes.

The above recording represents as true reflection of the proceedings that took place before the Court on the 6/02/2023 when the cause came up for hearing.

The record of evidence establishing the fact that the parties were married for a period of 7 years. They have lived apart since the year 2020.

Section 1 (1) (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Act 361 provides as follows;

1.     A petition for divorce may be presented to the Court by either party to the marriage.

2.     The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.

The Act 367, Section 2 (2) stress that, on petition for divorce, it shall be the duty of the Court to inquire, as far reasonable into the facts as alleged by the Petitioner and the Respondent. As much as the Court tried to fulfil its duty under the above provision, the parties were not forthcoming with any answers to open the Court’s window for more enquiries.

The issues in the instant petition are simple. The petition says the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, the Respondent cross petitioned and agreed. From the record of evidence before the Court, both alleged that attempts were made at reconciliation but same failed.

Though the Respondent said in her defence that the challenges of their unsuccessful marriage was Petitioner’s behaviour. She failed at trial to lead any satisfactory evidence in proof of same. Likewise, Petitioner failed to substantiate his suspicion of Respondent’s involvement with another man - (Alleged adultery).

The parties have not lived together as man and wife for more than 2 years. From painstaking evaluation of the evidence, nothing is being contested. Much as I find the proceedings in this trial strange, it takes two to tango; neither party has raised any red flags for the Court’s determination.

There is an African proverb that, when love turns sour, nothing can be done about it, and the sight and sound of things that did not matter then, makes one convulse.

Both parties have agreed that the marriage celebrated on the 19/03/2016 be dissolved. The parties herein have not been living together for more than two (2) years, preceding the presentation of the instant Petition.

It is observed that both have not been in contact with each other for a long time. Though the nature of the attempts made at reconciliation was not made known to the Court, both agreed attempts to reconcile their differences failed.

From the above reasons, therefore, I find as a fact that the marriage between the parties herein has broken down beyond reconciliation. One cannot force nor insist that the parties should continue to live together as man and wife if they cannot see eye to eye. At the trial, the Respondent abandoned all her claims sought in the cross-petition. Except her relief (a) Dissolution of the marriage.

I will therefore deem that the marriage between the parties contracted at the Registry of the District Magistrate Court, Ho on the 19/03/2016 to have broken down beyond reconciliation and same stands dissolved.

There will be no order as to cost.

(SGD.) CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J.

(JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

COURT THREE ‘3’

LAWYERS 

T. K.T. Kpoble Esq. for the Petitioner      -          Present.

Respondent Attorney in Person               -          Present.

vmo*