EUNICE ANIM VERSUS NANA KWADWO FOSU
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE CYNTHIA MARTINSON (MRS) (J)
The Petitioner, Eunice Anim, sought the dissolution of her ordinance marriage to the Respondent, contracted on 6 August 2022, on the grounds that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. She alleged that the Respondent deceived her about his marital status, employment, and financial standing, and further engaged in an adulterous relationship with her biological sister, causing severe emotional trauma and separation. The Respondent, though duly served, failed to enter appearance or defend the suit. The court, after hearing the Petitioner’s unchallenged testimony and examining the evidence as required under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), found that the Respondent’s conduct, including deceit and adultery, constituted sufficient grounds demonstrating that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Accordingly, the court granted a decree of divorce and dissolved the marriage. However, the Petitioner’s claim for financial settlement was denied due to lack of supporting evidence. Costs of GH¢2,500.00 were awarded against the Respondent.
GRACE ADDISON VRS CYRIL MARCHANT & ANOTHER
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE RITA AGYEMAN-BUDU (MRS)
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Bigamy – Adultery – Property Distribution – Consent Judgment. The petitioner, Grace Addison, filed a petition in 2018 seeking dissolution of her marriage to the 1st respondent, Cyril Marchant, annulment of his subsequent marriage to the 2nd respondent, and declaration of title to property at Afienya. She alleged that the 1st respondent contracted another marriage while their marriage was still subsisting. The 1st respondent denied the allegations and cross-petitioned for divorce, ownership of the Afienya property, and alimony, accusing the petitioner of adultery and abandonment. The petitioner also denied these claims, maintaining that the 1st respondent was guilty of bigamy. At trial, both parties agreed that their marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. Evidence showed that they had lived apart for over five years and had both engaged in conduct amounting to adultery. The court therefore held that the marriage, contracted in 1998, had broken down beyond reconciliation under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), and granted a decree of dissolution. On the second issue, the court found that the 1st respondent’s purported marriage to the 2nd respondent was void for bigamy, as his earlier marriage to the petitioner was still subsisting at the time. Consequently, that marriage was annulled. Regarding ancillary matters, the court adopted the parties’ Terms of Settlement as consent judgment. The Afienya property was shared, with the 1st respondent retaining the house and the petitioner receiving a portion of the land. Each party was to bear their own legal costs. In conclusion, the court dissolved the original marriage, annulled the subsequent marriage for bigamy, and enforced the agreed property settlement between the parties.
FESTUS ANIM ADDO VRS EVA ANIM ADDO
HIS HONOUR KWESI APPIATSE ABAIDOO
The petitioner, an engineer with the Volta River Authority (VRA), filed an amended petition on 8th December 2022 seeking the dissolution of his marriage and custody of the parties’ 17-year-old son. In response, the respondent filed an answer and cross-petition on 20th January 2023, also praying for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that it had broken down beyond reconciliation. Additionally, she sought financial provision for the maintenance of the children, settlement of matrimonial properties, allocation of certain vehicles, and alimony. The parties were married under the Ordinance on 27th May 2000 at Madina, Accra, and have three children, now aged 22, 19, and 18. During the marriage, the petitioner was the primary financial provider, acquiring several properties and vehicles. The respondent, initially a hairdresser, was supported and set up in business by the petitioner. The marriage was initially harmonious but deteriorated following the petitioner’s serious health condition, which affected his ability to engage in marital relations and altered the dynamics of the relationship. The petitioner alleged neglect, denial of intimacy, and suspected infidelity on the part of the respondent, while the respondent denied these claims and accused the petitioner of abandoning the matrimonial home. Both parties acknowledged failed attempts at reconciliation through family and religious interventions. The court identified three key issues: whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, whether the properties acquired were matrimonial property, and matters relating to custody and maintenance of the children. On the first issue, the court held that the marriage had indeed broken down beyond reconciliation under section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), as both parties were unable to resolve their differences despite diligent efforts. Accordingly, the marriage was dissolved. Regarding property distribution, the court considered the evolution of Ghanaian law, particularly Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution and relevant case law, which establish that property acquired during marriage is presumed to be jointly owned and subject to equitable distribution. However, the court distinguished between personal and matrimonial property based on intention and use. The two-bedroom house at Tema was deemed the petitioner’s personal property, as it was solely financed and intended for his individual ownership. Conversely, the four-bedroom house at Senchi, which served as the matrimonial home, was classified as family property. The court ordered that it be held in trust by the petitioner for the benefit of the children, with the respondent retaining possessory rights. With respect to the vehicles, the Nissan pick-up was awarded to the respondent as a family vehicle, while the Toyota Matrix and Mazda station wagon were retained by the petitioner due to outstanding loan obligations. The Mazda pick-up, having been sold prior to the action, was excluded from distribution. On custody and maintenance, the court noted that all children had attained the age of majority. Consequently, it declined to make a custody order, allowing the children to decide their residence. However, the petitioner was directed to continue providing financial support in accordance with the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). Finally, in considering the respondent’s claim for alimony, the court took into account the petitioner’s health condition, financial responsibilities, and role as sole provider. It awarded a reduced lump sum alimony of GH¢40,000.00 as fair and reasonable under the circumstances. In conclusion, the court dissolved the marriage, made specific orders regarding property distribution, declined custody orders due to the children’s ages, and granted alimony in a reduced amount, ensuring a balanced and equitable resolution for both parties.
MAJOR NOBERT ABEBA TIBORI (RTD) V. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH) LTD.
JUSTICE KWABENA ASUMAN-ADU
Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Probation – Effective Date of Employment – Unfair Termination – Jurisdiction – Lawful Termination – Payment in Lieu of Notice – Estoppel The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant subject to a six‑month probationary period. He was declared medically fit and commenced work on 5 June 2008. His appointment was terminated after the probation period on grounds of unsatisfactory performance, and he was paid terminal benefits including one month’s salary in lieu of notice, which he accepted without protest. Held: 1. Effective date of employment – Where an appointment letter provides that employment takes effect upon the employee being declared medically fit or reporting for duty, whichever is later, the operative date is the date the employee is medically certified fit and commences work. In the instant case, employment commenced on 5 June 2008, and probation expired on 4 December 2008. 2. Unfair termination of employment – By virtue of sections 62–64 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), claims of unfair termination fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the National Labour Commission, and not the courts. The Plaintiff’s claim for unfair termination was therefore incompetent. 3. Lawful termination of employment – Where the conditions of service permit termination by notice or payment in lieu of notice and prescribe no mandatory disciplinary procedure, an employer is entitled to terminate employment without assigning reasons, provided the contractual notice requirements are satisfied. The Defendant’s termination of the Plaintiff’s appointment upon payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice was lawful. 4. Burden of proof in unlawful termination – In an action for wrongful or unlawful termination, the employee bears the burden of proving the terms of the contract and that the termination was in breach thereof or contrary to statute. The Plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. 5. Estoppel – Acceptance of terminal benefits – An employee who accepts terminal benefits, including payment in lieu of notice, without protest or reservation, is estopped from subsequently challenging the lawfulness of the termination. Such acceptance amounts to a compromise agreement extinguishing any further claims arising from the termination. Decision: Judgment entered for the Defendant; all reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff dismissed. No order as to costs.
THOMPSON ABOAGYE ABRADU V. RIDGE ALUMETAL PRODUCTS CO LTD
GIFTY DEKYEM J
Employment Law – Termination of Employment – Notice – Redundancy – Burden of Proof The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant company. In or about April 2014, the Defendant sent the Plaintiffs home without notice, explanation, or payment of salaries and without formally terminating their employment or declaring redundancy. Despite attempts by the Plaintiffs and their trade union (Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of Ghana) to engage the Defendant to negotiate severance or redundancy benefits, the Defendant failed or refused to do so. The Plaintiffs remained on the Defendant’s payroll as employees but received no remuneration thereafter. The Defendant was duly served but failed to appear at trial, and its defence was struck out for failure to comply with pre‑trial procedures. The Plaintiffs sought, among others: a. A declaration that the Defendant breached its statutory duty and contract of employment (including the Collective Bargaining Agreement). b. Payment of arrears of salaries and allowances, with interest. c. A declaration that the Plaintiffs had been rendered redundant under section 65 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651). d. An order for negotiation and payment of redundancy benefits. e. Punitive damages for breach of contract. HELD: 1. The Defendant breached the employment contract by terminating the Plaintiffs’ employment without notice or payment in lieu. 2. The Defendant’s conduct did not amount to redundancy under section 65 of the Labour Act. 3. The Plaintiffs were entitled only to compensation for unlawful termination, not redundancy benefits.
MEMUNATU TANKO V. NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AUTHORITY
H/L NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI
Labour Law - Employment - Redundancy - Termination of Employment - Administrative Law – Public Service – Transfer – Redundancy – Administrative Justice A public officer of the National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA), appointed as Director of Quality Assurance with presidential authorization through the Public Services Commission, was transferred by the Acting Chief Executive of NHIA to the Ministry of Health following organizational restructuring. The transfer resulted in the abolition of her office, cessation of her salary, and failure to assign her any substantive role at the Ministry. The Applicant challenged the transfer as ultra vires, unreasonable, and in breach of her right to administrative justice and right to work, contending that the statutory procedures governing redundancy were not followed. Held: 1. The transfer was not ultra vires, as NHIA acted pursuant to delegated executive authority within the public service framework. 2. A public servant has no constitutional right not to be transferred, and courts will not interfere with bona fide organizational restructuring decisions. 3. However, where restructuring leads to the abolition of a post, the affected officer is rendered redundant, and the employer must comply strictly with the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) and applicable conditions of service. 4. A transfer cannot lawfully coexist with redundancy: transfer implies continuation of employment, while redundancy entails termination with attendant statutory entitlements. 5. NHIA’s failure to follow redundancy procedures constituted procedural impropriety and a breach of Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution on administrative justice. Accordingly, the application was granted in part, and the Respondent was ordered to compute and pay the Applicant’s redundancy entitlements, with mandamus issued to compel compliance, and costs awarded in favour of the Applicant
BRIGITTE NAA KOOKO EDUFUL VS. ERNEST KOJO EDUFUL
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS)
This case concerns a petition by a wife for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground that it had broken down beyond reconciliation under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). The parties, both Ghanaian citizens, were married on 5th August 2016 at the Ledzokuku Krowor Municipal Assembly, Teshie-Nungua, and cohabited at Spintex and later Adjei Kojo. The marriage produced no children. The Petitioner filed for divorce on 22nd November 2022, alleging that the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour and failed reconciliation efforts had rendered the marriage unsustainable. The Respondent denied these claims and filed a cross-petition, attributing the breakdown to the Petitioner’s conduct. Despite their disagreements, both parties acknowledged persistent conflict and unsuccessful attempts by family, friends, and clergy to resolve their differences. At trial, the Petitioner gave evidence of verbal and physical abuse, controlling behaviour, and interference with her personal relationships by the Respondent. The Respondent, on the other hand, accused the Petitioner of being aggressive, neglecting marital duties, and engaging in inappropriate conduct. The Court observed that the marriage was marked by mutual hostility, lack of communication, and irreconcilable differences. Relying particularly on section 2(1)(f) of Act 367, which applies where parties have been unable to reconcile despite diligent efforts, the Court found that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. Accordingly, a decree of divorce was granted, and the marriage was dissolved. Although the parties had filed Terms of Settlement, the Court independently satisfied itself of the breakdown before adopting those terms. It ordered that the marriage be dissolved, each party bears their own costs, and any further appropriate orders may be made. In sum, the Court concluded that the persistent conflicts and failed reconciliation efforts made the continuation of the marriage untenable, thereby justifying its dissolution.
KALEDZI ETORNAM ERNESTINA VS. GEORGE KOGBE
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE DOREEN G. BOAKYE-AGYEI (MRS.)
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Unreasonable Behaviour – Separation – Custody – Maintenance – Property Distribution – Compensation. In the present case between the Petitioner, formerly known as Kaledzi Etornam Ernestina, and the Respondent, the Court was called upon to determine whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and should therefore be dissolved and to resolve ancillary matters including custody, maintenance, property distribution, and compensation. The facts reveal that the parties were lawfully married on 31st December 2011 at Sogakope under the Marriage Ordinance. Both parties are Ghanaian citizens domiciled in Ghana. The Petitioner is a nurse stationed at Sogakope, while the Respondent resides in Akim Oda. The marriage produced one child, Valerie Deladem Kogbe. Shortly after the marriage, the parties cohabited briefly, but due to the Petitioner’s work, they began living separately, maintaining contact through periodic visits. Over time, however, the relationship deteriorated significantly. The Petitioner’s case was that the marriage had been plagued by persistent quarrels and hostility. She alleged that the Respondent insulted and assaulted her during one such dispute, resulting in physical injury. She further contended that the Respondent ceased communication, neglected his responsibilities towards her and the child, and openly declared his lack of interest in continuing the marriage. The Petitioner also relied on evidence of prolonged separation and failed reconciliation efforts involving family members, religious leaders, and social welfare authorities. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied several of these allegations and attributed the breakdown of the marriage to the Petitioner’s conduct. He accused her of disrespecting his family, engaging in inappropriate relationships, and neglecting her marital obligations. He further claimed that the Petitioner frustrated his attempts to provide maintenance and access to the child. Notwithstanding these disputes, the Respondent conceded that the marriage had, to some extent, broken down. In resolving the primary issue, the Court applied sections 1(2) and 2(1) of Act 367, which require proof of one or more statutory facts to establish that a marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. The Court particularly relied on section 2(1)(f), which concerns the inability of the parties to reconcile their differences after diligent effort. Upon examining the evidence, including the parties’ communications and their prolonged separation since at least 2018, the Court found that the relationship had become irreparably damaged. The persistent conflicts, mutual hostility, and failed reconciliation attempts demonstrated that the marriage could no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the Court granted a decree of divorce. With respect to custody, the Court was guided by the paramount principle of the best interest of the child as stipulated in the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). In determining custody, the Court considered factors such as the age of the child, her welfare, and the need for stability and continuity of care. The Court noted that the child, being a young girl, would be better cared for by her mother, particularly in the absence of a clear plan from the Respondent regarding her upbringing. Consequently, custody was awarded to the Petitioner, with reasonable access granted to the Respondent, including visitation during school vacations. On the issue of maintenance, the Court acknowledged that there had been periods during which the Respondent failed to adequately provide for the child. Although there was some dispute as to whether this failure was due to the Petitioner’s conduct, the Court emphasized that both parents have a joint responsibility to cater for the needs of their child. In line with this principle, the Court ordered the Respondent to pay a monthly maintenance sum of GH₵500, in addition to covering the child’s educational and medical expenses. The Respondent was also directed to settle any outstanding arrears as determined by the Social Welfare authorities. The Petitioner, on her part, was tasked with providing for the child’s clothing and other incidental needs, while both parties were to share accommodation costs and ensure the child’s enrolment in the National Health Insurance Scheme. The issue of compensation presented a more complex dimension of the case. The Petitioner sought compensation for wasted time and opportunities, but the Court found no legal basis for such a claim and accordingly dismissed it. Conversely, the Respondent’s claim for compensation was upheld. The Court found credible evidence of the Petitioner’s infidelity, including the birth of a child during the subsistence of the marriage and the pendency of the proceedings. On this basis, the Court awarded the Respondent a sum of GH₵3,000 as compensation for the emotional and marital harm suffered. Regarding the distribution of property, the main asset in contention was a plot of land at Sogakope. The Respondent argued that the property was jointly acquired, while the Petitioner maintained that she solely financed its acquisition. The Court placed significant reliance on documentary evidence, particularly the indenture, which indicated that the land was registered in the Petitioner’s name alone. Although the Respondent claimed to have contributed financially, he failed to substantiate this claim with credible evidence. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that he made some minimal contribution towards the acquisition of the property. Applying the principles of equity under Article 22(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the Court held that while the property was not jointly owned in equal shares, fairness demanded that the Respondent be granted a proportionate interest. Accordingly, the Court awarded him a one-tenth share of the property and ordered the Petitioner to buy out his interest. The Respondent’s additional claims for the return of certain personal items were dismissed on the grounds that no evidence was led in support of them. As such, the Court treated those claims as abandoned. In conclusion, the Court found that the marriage between the parties had broken down beyond reconciliation and accordingly granted a decree of divorce. Custody of the child was awarded to the Petitioner in line with the best interest principle, while financial responsibilities were apportioned between both parties. The Court also made orders regarding maintenance, compensation, and property distribution based on the evidence and equitable considerations. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
MARTHA MENSAH VRS BENJAMIN ATO BOHAM
HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE BERNARD BENTIL
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Adultery – Unreasonable Behaviour – Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana – Custody – Spousal Property Distribution – Substantial contribution. This case concerns a petition for divorce filed by the wife under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), seeking dissolution of a statutory marriage contracted in 1999. The parties had four children and had previously engaged in unsuccessful legal proceedings. The petitioner alleged that the marriage had broken down due to the respondent’s adultery and unreasonable behaviour, including multiple extramarital relationships, cohabitation with another woman, threats, verbal abuse, and neglect. The respondent denied these claims and counter-alleged adultery and misconduct by the petitioner, while also seeking custody and financial reliefs. The central issue before the court was whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. Applying Sections 1 and 2 of Act 367, the court evaluated whether the petitioner had established any of the statutory facts, particularly adultery and unreasonable behaviour. The court found sufficient evidence of adultery on the part of the respondent, including uncontroverted testimony of extramarital relationships and proof of a subsequent marriage to another woman during the subsistence of the existing marriage, which amounted to bigamy. Additionally, the court held that the respondent’s conduct, such as interference with the petitioner’s property and cohabitation with another woman, constituted unreasonable behaviour. The court also noted that allegations of adultery against the petitioner were unchallenged and thus deemed admitted. On the totality of the evidence, the court concluded that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and granted a decree of dissolution. On custody, the court applied the welfare principle under the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), emphasizing the best interests of the children. Given that the two younger children had been living abroad with the petitioner and had established stability there, the court awarded custody to the petitioner, with unrestricted access to the respondent. Regarding property distribution, the court considered Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution and relevant case law on jointly acquired property. It held that the petitioner failed to prove substantial contribution to the construction of the matrimonial home, and thus was not entitled to a share in it. Similarly, the respondent failed to prove entitlement to the petitioner’s alleged investments. However, the court exercised its discretion to award the petitioner a Mercedes Benz vehicle as part of property settlement. Finally, the court awarded the petitioner alimony of GH¢45,000, dissolved the marriage, granted custody of the children to the petitioner, and made no order as to costs.
MEGHAN JULIA AYITEY V RAPHAEL M.K. AYITEY
HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE MAVIS AKUA ANDOH (MRS.)
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Desertion – Unreasonable Behaviour – Prolonged Separation – Burden of Proof – Custody – Maintenance. This case concerns a protracted divorce petition brought by the wife under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), seeking dissolution of an ordinance marriage contracted in 2012 after an initial customary marriage. The parties, both Ghanaian professionals, had two children. The petitioner alleged that the marriage had broken down due to the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour, including threats, verbal abuse, lack of support, and alleged assault, while the respondent denied these claims and counter-alleged that the petitioner was aggressive, abusive, and physically violent, even presenting medical and documentary evidence to support his assertions. The court identified the main issue as whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, the sole ground for divorce under Act 367. In evaluating the evidence, the court found that the petitioner failed to prove her allegations of assault due to lack of corroborative evidence. In contrast, the respondent successfully established instances of unreasonable behaviour by the petitioner, supported by medical reports and photographic evidence of physical injury. Nonetheless, the court held that the cumulative effect of the parties’ conduct, prolonged separation (over seven years), and failed reconciliation efforts demonstrated that the marriage had irreconcilably broken down. Accordingly, the court granted a decree of dissolution. On ancillary matters, the court first resolved the issue of paternity through a DNA test, which confirmed the respondent as the biological father of both children. In determining custody, the court applied the welfare principle under Act 367 and the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), emphasizing stability and continuity. Since the children had lived with the mother for several years, custody was awarded to the petitioner, with structured access granted to the respondent, including weekends and shared holidays. Regarding maintenance, the court reiterated that parental responsibility is joint but ordered the respondent to pay GH¢2,000 monthly toward the children’s upkeep, with both parties contributing to their education and medical needs. The respondent was further directed to bear 80% of school fees, with the petitioner covering 20%. Additionally, in light of the prolonged dispute over paternity and the emotional strain caused, the court awarded the petitioner GH¢30,000 as compensation. In conclusion, the court dissolved the marriage, confirmed paternity, granted custody to the petitioner, imposed maintenance and educational obligations on both parties, and awarded compensation to the petitioner, with each party bearing their own legal costs.
NYIKPA LUCY VRS. SIMON QUIST AYIKU
CHARITY A. ASEM (MRS.) J.
This case involves a petition for divorce filed by the wife under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), seeking the dissolution of a marriage contracted in 2018. Both parties also sought dissolution, with the respondent filing an answer and cross-petition. The central issue before the court was whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, which is the sole ground for divorce under Ghanaian law. The petitioner, a police officer, alleged that the respondent’s conduct led to the breakdown of the marriage. She claimed that he was unfaithful, denied responsibility for her pregnancy, accused her of adultery, and failed to support her during pregnancy and after childbirth. The situation was further aggravated by the death of their child, which caused her significant emotional distress. She maintained that all attempts at reconciliation had failed. The respondent denied these allegations, insisting he had not neglected the petitioner and questioning the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy. After evaluating the evidence, the court found that the relationship between the parties had become irreparably strained. It noted that the respondent’s conduct, particularly his handling of the pregnancy, denial of paternity, and lack of adequate care and support, contributed significantly to the breakdown of the marriage. The court also inferred from the respondent’s cross-petition that he implicitly accepted that the marriage could not continue. Applying Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, the court held that the petitioner had established that the respondent behaved in a manner such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him, and that both parties had been unable to reconcile their differences despite efforts to do so. Consequently, the court concluded that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and granted a decree of dissolution. Although the petitioner did not expressly seek financial relief, the court, in the interest of justice, awarded her GH¢20,000 as compensation. This was to address her emotional trauma and the respondent’s failure to adequately maintain her during the marriage, particularly during her pregnancy and the period leading to the death of their child. No order as to costs was made.
FREDERICK KWAPONG OFEI V MRS.FREDA KWAPONG
MAVIS ANDOH (MRS.)
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Desertion – Unreasonable Behaviour – Burden of Proof – Custody – Maintenance. This case concerns a petition for divorce brought by the husband under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), following the breakdown of a statutory marriage celebrated in 2009 at Akropong. The parties, both Ghanaian professionals, had two children. The petitioner alleged that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation due to the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour, desertion, and the parties’ prolonged separation. Although the respondent filed an answer and cross-petition seeking dissolution, custody, maintenance, and property settlement, she failed to participate in the trial despite proper notice. The court identified the key issue as whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, the sole ground for divorce under Act 367. Relying on unchallenged evidence from the petitioner, the court found that the parties had not lived together as husband and wife since 2013, that communication had completely broken down, and that reconciliation efforts by family and institutions had failed. The respondent’s absence from trial meant that the petitioner’s evidence stood uncontroverted. The court held that the respondent’s conduct amounted to unreasonable behaviour and desertion, satisfying the statutory requirements under Section 2(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the court concluded that the marriage had irreconcilably broken down and granted a decree of dissolution. On the ancillary issues, the court dismissed the respondent’s cross-petition for failure of proof, as she neither testified nor led evidence in support of her claims. Regarding custody, the court applied the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount, as reflected in both Act 367 and the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560). Given that the children had lived with their mother for several years, the court awarded custody to the respondent, with reasonable access to the petitioner, including weekends and regular virtual communication. The court further ordered the petitioner to contribute GH¢1,500 monthly toward the children’s upkeep and to bear responsibility for their education up to the tertiary level. Claims relating to property distribution were rejected due to lack of evidence. Ultimately, the court dissolved the marriage, granted custody to the respondent, imposed maintenance obligations on the petitioner, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
SEGUN STANLEY SYLVESTER VS. SIMISOLA PATIENCE I. SYLVESTER
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ELFREDA AMY DANKYI (MRS)
Matrimonial Causes – Dissolution of Marriage – Grounds for Divorce – Separation – Failed Reconciliation – Consent Judgment – Custody – Maintenance. This case concerns a petition for dissolution of marriage brought by the husband under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). The parties, both Nigerian citizens, were married in Accra in 2003 under the Marriage Ordinance and had four children. Over time, the marriage deteriorated, with the petitioner alleging unreasonable behaviour and desertion by the respondent, who had relocated to Germany and expressed no intention of returning to live in Africa. The central legal issue before the court was whether the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, which is the sole ground for divorce under the Act. The court noted that, although the petitioner relied on unreasonable behaviour, the evidence clearly established that the parties had lived apart for at least seven continuous years prior to the filing of the petition. This satisfied Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which provides that a marriage may be dissolved where the parties have not lived together for a continuous period of at least five years. In line with its statutory duty, the court independently assessed the evidence despite the parties having filed terms of settlement. It concluded that the prolonged separation demonstrated an irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage. Accordingly, the court granted a decree of dissolution and cancelled the marriage certificate. Additionally, the court adopted the parties’ terms of settlement as a consent judgment. These included the equal distribution of the petitioner’s interest in a school among the four children, the grant of custody of the youngest child to the respondent with access to the petitioner, and the final resolution of all matters between the parties.
ADOLF LATEVI LAWSON V. ALLIANCE FRANCAISE D’ACCRA
GIFTY DEKYEM J
Labour Law — Termination of Employment — Misconduct — Proof of Misconduct — Fair Hearing — Natural Justice — Investigative Committees — Damages for Wrongful Termination — Reinstatement — SSNIT Contributions The plaintiff, a lecturer employed by the defendant from 1990, was interdicted and subsequently dismissed for alleged sexual harassment of students after an internal investigation. Although the plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond in writing to an investigative report, he contended that the allegations were unproven and that the dismissal was unlawful. Held: (1) Fair hearing does not necessarily require a formal oral or viva voce hearing; it is sufficient if an employee is given notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond, including by written representations. (2) However, under sections 15(e)(iii) and 62(b) of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), an employer who terminates employment on grounds of misconduct bears the burden of proving the alleged misconduct. (3) Where an investigative report contains uncorroborated allegations, hearsay, inconsistencies, and lacks clear findings of fact demonstrating culpability, such allegations remain unproven and cannot justify termination. (4) Multitudinous allegations without proof do not satisfy the standard required to lawfully terminate an employment contract for misconduct. (5) The defendant having failed to prove the misconduct alleged against the plaintiff, the termination of the plaintiff’s employment was unlawful. (6) An order for reinstatement will not lie in ordinary contracts of employment absent a public law element, as it would amount to specific performance. (7) The appropriate remedy for wrongful termination is damages, assessed on the basis of the employee’s salary for a reasonable period within which alternative employment should have been found, subject to mitigation. Accordingly, the plaintiff was awarded two years’ net salary as damages, outstanding SSNIT contributions from the commencement of employment to termination were ordered to be paid, and costs were awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
CHARLES YAW FUGAH V. COCOA MARKETING COMPANY
APPAU J.A. (Presiding), DUOSE J.A., OFOE J.A.
Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Employee Misconduct - Natural Justice Facts: The respondent company terminated the appellant’s employment following investigations into losses caused by the export of short‑weighted cocoa. Three committees were set up to investigate the matter and recommended the termination of members of certain takeover teams, including the appellant. The appellant, a security officer, admitted knowledge of the short‑weight cocoa at his shed but failed to appear before the investigative committees. He challenged the termination as unlawful, alleging breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and denial of a hearing. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The termination was lawful and in accordance with the contract of service and the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
SG-SSB LIMITED V. MR CHARLES AFFRAN
V. D. OFOE JA (PRESIDING), S. DZAMEFE JA, M. M. AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA
Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Burden of Proof – Negligence – Fair Termination – Contract of Service – Appellate Review The respondent, a deputy branch manager of the appellant bank, processed foreign transfer requests which later turned out to be unauthorised, resulting in financial loss to the bank. Following disciplinary proceedings, his employment was terminated pursuant to the bank’s Rules and Conditions of Service for failure to verify signatures in accordance with established procedure. The High Court entered judgment for the respondent, holding that his employment had been unfairly terminated and awarding accumulated salary and benefits. The appellant bank appealed. Held: Allowing the appeal. 1. An appellate court will interfere with findings of fact where such findings are not supported by the evidence on record or where the trial judge misdirected himself on the applicable burden of proof. 2. The joinder of issue by a defendant does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden of proof. A plaintiff who alleges absence of negligence bears both the legal and evidential burden of establishing that claim under the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323). 3. An employer is entitled at common law and under contract to terminate an employment relationship by notice or payment in lieu of notice, without assigning reasons, provided the termination is not by way of punishment or dismissal. 4. Termination of employment is distinct from dismissal. Termination pursuant to contractual terms does not require proof of misconduct and does not attract the protections applicable to dismissal for cause. 5. Where the employment relationship is governed by a private contract of service, the provisions of section 62 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) on fair termination do not override the parties’ contractual right to terminate by notice. 6. On the evidence, the respondent’s admission that he failed to follow the bank’s prescribed verification procedure supported the allegation of negligence, and the High Court erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the termination was lawful, the finding of unfair termination was erroneous, and the award of accumulated salary and benefits was unjustified.
Ama Agyeiwaa, Yaw Boafo and Opanin Kwame Baffoe v Charles Kwabena Effah
Justice Joyce Boahen
The plaintiffs, representing beneficiaries of the estate of the late Ben Agyei Fofie, brought an action against the defendant, also a beneficiary, over a disputed cocoa farm at Nsumama. They sought declarations that the farm formed part of the estate, that the deceased’s will was valid, and orders for accounts and injunction. The plaintiffs led evidence that the deceased acquired the cocoa farm as his self-acquired property, cultivated it, and exercised exclusive control over it. They further established that during his lifetime, the deceased gifted a portion of the farm to the defendant and his siblings, and subsequently devised the remainder through his will, which was admitted to probate. The defendant contended that the land belonged to his maternal grandfather and challenged the validity of the will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity. However, he failed to attend court to substantiate his claims or prosecute his counterclaim. The court held that the plaintiffs had discharged their burden of proof through credible and unchallenged evidence, including documentary evidence of the will, probate, and vesting assent. The court found that the disputed farm was the self-acquired property of the deceased and that he had validly disposed of it partly by gift and partly by will. The court further held that the defendant’s failure to testify or adduce evidence rendered his counterclaim unproven. Accordingly, the court dismissed the counterclaim and granted the plaintiffs’ reliefs, including declaration of title, validation of the will, order for accounts, injunction, and costs of GH₵40,000.00.
Madam Agnes Annan (suing per her lawful attorney Patrick Adotey Brown) v The Registered Trustees of the Methodist Church of Ghana and Pack Plus International Ltd
Justice Jennifer Anne Myers Ahmed
The plaintiff claimed ownership of land at Ako-Adjei, West Labadi, tracing title to her father who acquired the land in 1950 through a deed of gift from the Abafum Quarter of La. She relied on registration of the deed and subsequent vesting of the property in her name after obtaining letters of administration in 2015. The defendants contended that the land formed part of land compulsorily acquired by the government in 1951 and that their interests were validly derived from the Lands Commission. The 1st defendant relied on a lease granted by the Lands Commission in 1999 and a land title certificate, while the 2nd defendant traced title to a grant made by the Lands Commission to its predecessor in 1966. The court held that although the plaintiff’s father may have validly acquired the land in 1950, his interest was extinguished in 1951 when the government compulsorily acquired the land. The plaintiff failed to prove that the land she claimed fell outside the acquired area. The court further held that the defendants had established valid title through derivative grants from the Lands Commission and that their titles were supported by registration and possession. The plaintiff’s allegation of fraud was not proved. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the land claimed and failed to prove any acts of possession over the land. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the court held that the land belonged to the State, with valid interests granted to the defendants.
John Arhinful and Sophia Naa Korkoi Aryee v Philip Kpabitey
Justice Emmanuel Amo Yartey
This case arose from interpleader proceedings following execution of a judgment obtained by the defendant against a developer, Kumsark Estates Ltd. The defendant sought to enforce a writ of possession against occupants on the land, including the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of their respective residential properties at Oyarifa, which they acquired through HFC Bank promotions and subsequent deeds of assignment. They asserted that they were bona fide purchasers for value and had been in possession for several years. The defendant, however, relied on prior judgments establishing his title to the larger tract of land and contended that the plaintiffs derived their title from a party who had been adjudged a trespasser. The court held that in interpleader proceedings, the claimants bore the burden of proving that the attached property belonged to them. The court further emphasized the importance of proving the identity and boundaries of land in dispute. A composite plan prepared by the Survey Department revealed that the plaintiffs’ land overlapped the defendant’s land by five (5) feet. Based on this evidence, the court held that while the plaintiffs were entitled to their properties, the defendant was entitled to the portion of land representing the overlap. Accordingly, the court discharged the execution against the plaintiffs’ properties except to the extent of the five (5) feet overlap, which was awarded to the defendant.
Ephraim O. Commodore (suing per his lawful attorney Kwaku Amankwatia) v Mrs Agnes Abla Akoto and Rose Akler Baako
Justice Emmanuel Amo Yartey
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property at Teshie-Nungua Estate, which he purchased from the 1st Defendant in 1997 and subsequently developed through remittances and supervision by the 1st Defendant. He relied on receipts, letters, and evidence of construction completed in 2001. The defendants contended that the property was later sold to the 2nd Defendant in 2001, who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The 1st Defendant argued that the sale was facilitated by the plaintiff’s wife due to financial difficulties. The court found that the plaintiff had paid the full purchase price and exercised acts of possession by constructing the building, thereby acquiring a prior equitable interest in the property. The court further held that at the time of the purported sale to the 2nd Defendant, neither the 1st Defendant nor the plaintiff’s wife had any interest in the property to convey. Applying the nemo dat principle and the doctrine that fraud vitiates all transactions, the court held that the sale to the 2nd Defendant was null and void. The defence of bona fide purchaser for value without notice failed since the vendor lacked title. Accordingly, the court set aside the sale, declared title in favour of the plaintiff, granted recovery of possession, injunction, and awarded costs of GH₵15,000.00.