Automated Summary
Key Facts
The petitioner (Stella Avaa) filed for divorce from the respondent (Erastus Charty Marbel) on August 30, 2023, citing unreasonable behavior and a two-year separation. The marriage, under the Marriage Ordinance (Cap 127), was solemnized on December 21, 2019, in the Ashanti Region. The respondent, served with court documents and hearing notices (including on January 23, 2024), failed to appear, leading to a default judgment. The court found the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation due to the respondent’s anger, financial irresponsibility (including a GHC22,000 unpaid loan), failure to support the family, and threats to end the marriage. The decree of dissolution was granted on January 26, 2024.
Issues
- The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the judgment in the absence of the respondent, who had been served with hearing notices but failed to appear. This involved evaluating legal precedents such as Barclays Bank v Ghana Cable Co. [2002-03] SCGLR 1 and In re West Coast Dyeing Ind. Ltd; Adams v Tandoh [1987-88] 2 GLR 561, which address the validity of court decisions when a party does not attend a trial despite being notified.
- The court evaluated if the parties' two-year separation immediately preceding the petition satisfied the legal requirement under section 2(1)(d) of Act 367 for dissolving a marriage. The evidence included unsuccessful attempts to reconcile and the absence of cohabitation for this period.
- The court assessed whether the respondent's behavior—such as frequent anger, insults, failure to support the family, and pre-marital deception—constituted unreasonable conduct under section 2(1)(b) of Act 367. This included examining the cumulative effect of the behavior and whether it met the objective test of making cohabitation unreasonable for the petitioner.
Holdings
- The court found that the respondent's behavior (including anger, insults, lack of support, and deceit regarding a loan) was unreasonable and made it impossible for the petitioner to continue the marriage, satisfying section 2(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (1971 Act 367).
- The court determined that the parties had failed to cohabit as husband and wife for at least two years preceding the petition, fulfilling section 2(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (1971 Act 367) as an additional ground for dissolution.
Remedies
- There shall be no order as to cost.
- The court decrees the marriage between the parties celebrated on 21st December 2019 at Church of Pentecost Obuasi Anyinam in the Ashanti Region to be dissolved forthwith on 26th January 2024.
Legal Principles
- The court emphasized that even if a respondent is absent, the petitioner must still meet the burden of proof to dissolve the marriage. This was reinforced by references to Barclays Bank v Ghana Cable Co. and In re West Coast Dyeing Ind. Ltd, establishing that unchallenged evidence does not automatically satisfy legal requirements without proper scrutiny.
- Under section 2(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Act 367), a petitioner must prove the respondent's unreasonable behavior makes cohabitation intolerable. The court applied this principle, finding the petitioner's unchallenged evidence sufficient to establish the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 2(1)(d) further supports dissolution when parties have lived separately for two years preceding the petition.
Precedent Name
- Mensah v Mensah
- Barclays Bank v Ghana Cable Co
- FORI v. AYIREBI AND OTHER
- Knudsen v Knudsen
- In re West Coast Dyeing Ind. Ltd; Adams v Tandoh
- Vasque v Quarshie
Cited Statute
Matrimonial Causes Act
Judge Name
Her Honour Afia Owusuaa Appiah (Mrs)
Passage Text
- Parties have failed to live together as husband and wife for the past two years. Under section 2(1d) of Act367, where parties to a marriage fail to live together as husband and wife for a period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, same suffice as proof of break down of the marriage beyond reconciliation.
- The unchallenged evidence of Petitioner supra to the effect that Respondent gets angry/furious at the least provocation, rains insult on Petitioner, fails to support the upkeep of the family, shows no love, trust or commitment in the marriage cumulatively is of such gravity that it would be unreasonable to expect Petitioner to live as husband and wife with him.
- The court is therefore satisfied per the evidence on record that the marriage celebrated between the parties on 21st day of December 2019 at Church of Pentecost Obuasi Anyinam, in the Ashanti Region has broken down beyond reconciliation due to the unreasonable behavior of Respondent and failure of parties to live together as husband and wife for a period of at least two years preceding the presentation of the Petition.