VIDA DOE VS. CORNELIUS FREMPONG

JUDGMENT:

This is a wife’s petition for dissolution of the marriage celebrated between the parties on 9th August 2003, at the Church of Pentecost, Koforidua under the Marriages Act, 1884 – 1985 (CAP 127). After the marriage, the parties cohabited at Site 16, Lashibi, Accra and subsequently at Lashibi Transformer, Accra.

There are three issues of the marriage; Emmanuel Anane Frimpong aged sixteen (16) years, Graceilla Anane Frimpong aged (13) years and Nana Anane Frimpong aged ten (10) years as at the time that the petition was filed. The Petitioner and Respondent are both Ghanaian citizens and ordinarily resident in Ghana.

The Petitioner says that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and attributes it to adultery and unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Respondent. The Petitioner is praying for the dissolution of the marriage between Petitioner and the Respondent.

The said petition was duly served on the Respondent. The Respondent entered appearance to the Petition and filed an Answer. The Petitioner filed a Reply.

The pleadings in the suit having closed, the suit was set down for trial on 28th July, 2022. The evidence of the parties was heard on 26th July, 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 proves 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 adultery and the unreasonable behavior of Respondent and attempts at reconciliation has proved futile. Respondent also attributed the breakdown to the misunderstandings between parties and the inability of parties to reconcile their differences.

By Section 2 (1) (f) of Act 367, where the parties have been unable to reconcile their differences after diligent effort, the Court may proceed to dissolve the marriage. As the parties have been unable to reconcile their differences, after diligent effort, I find that the marriage celebrated between them has broken down beyond reconciliation.

Upon the evidence adduced before the Court therefore, 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, 2003, at Koforidua, be and is hereby dissolved. The marriage certificate is cancelled forthwith.

On 30th June, 2023, the parties filed Terms of Settlement praying that same be adopted by this Court. This Court hereby adopts the said Terms of Settlement and enters Consent Judgment between the parties as follows;

1.     The marriage between the parties be dissolved.

2.     The Petitioner be granted custody of the children of the marriage namely; Emmanuel Anane Frimpong, Graciella Anane Frimpong and Nana Anane Frimpong with access of the Respondent

3.     The Respondent’s work involves a lot of travels. However, the Petitioner shall ensure that the children of the marriage are available to the Respondent when he is available to have access upon giving sufficient notice. Such access shall on weekends or school holidays.

4.     Weekend in this Agreement means Saturdays and Sunday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

5.     Any other arrangements regarding custody and access shall be discussed and agreed upon by the parties in the best interest of the children.

6.     The Respondent shall maintain the children with GH¢500.00 every month per child subject to a 30% upward review every 1st day of January of every calendar year shall they attain the age of majority.

7.     The Respondent shall pay for medical expenses, school fees and necessaries of the issues of the marriage until they attain the age of majority.

8.     The parties have agreed to bear their own legal fees and cost in connection with the suit.

9.     The rights arising under, or in connection with this Agreement shall not be waived in any manner except as expressly provided in this Agreement which also include rights provided by law.

10.    No variation of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by or on behalf of each of the parties herein.

11. A person who is not a party to this agreement shall not have any right (s) under the Agreement except successors in title of the parties whom shall have all the rights conferred on the relevant party herein.

12. This Agreement and matters arising from or in connection with it shall be governed by and constructed in accordance with Ghanaian law.

13. The Parties agree to fully and finally settle all claims between themselves by and through the performance of the obligations under this Agreement. The parties further agree that the reliefs and claims settled by the Agreement are the only reliefs and claims of the parties against each other that exist as the effective date of this agreement. It is understood that not aspect of this agreement shall release (or is intended to release or waive) any party from liability for any post agreement, new wrongful act or omission, including but not limited to independent torts not related or release by the provisions of this agreement.

14.       CONFIDENTIALITY

The parties acknowledge and agree that all communications and documents in connection with the settlement discussions preceding this agreement are confidential communication, and neither party shall disclose any such confidential communication to any person or entity that is not a party hereto without the prior written consent of the other party, except to the extent necessary to implement and give effect to the terms of this agreement of as it required by law.

(SGD.)

JUSTICE ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS)

JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

COUNSEL:

VITALIS SUGLO HOLDING THE BRIEF OF PROSPER NTOW FOR THE PETITIONER

FREDA ASEIDUA OHENE ODEI FOR SEM IROKO THE RESPONDENT