BORIS FIDELIS v. JANET MIKADO

The Plaintiff on 29 January 2021 issued out a writ of summons against the defendant

claiming the following reliefs:

1. The Plaintiff’s claim is for special damages for deciept (sic) by the Defendant for

wrongfully, intentionally and falsely representing that Plaintiff was responsible for the

pregnancy for which act the Plaintiff suffered damages against the defendant.

2. General damages for deceipt(sic).

3. Costs

Briefly, the Plaintiff’s claim is that in the month of November 2019, the defendant lodged

a complaint at the Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DOVVSU) of the Ghana

Police Service, Hohoe against the Plaintiff that she was impregnated by the Plaintiff.

According to the Plaintiff he denied the allegation when he was called to the office of the

Divisional Commander of Police with CHRAJ and the District Social Welfare Officer in

attendance. It is the case of the Plaintiff that to avoid scandal, he agreed to pay

maintenance allowance of Ghs 100.00 per month until the Defendant gives birth.

According to the Plaintiff on the 17th of July 2020 he caused a Writ of summons to issue

before the District Court, Hohoe, suit No A6/01/2021 against the Defendant in suit

entitled FIDELIS BORIS v. JANET MIKADO. It is the further case of the Plaintiff that the

court ordered a paternity test when the child was born, and the report indicated that the

Plaintiff was not the father of the child. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the court ordered

him to bear the cost of the test.

The defendant was served with the writ of summons and statement of claim. She entered

appearance on 10 August 2021 and filed a defence on 31 August 2021 and denied the

claim of the claim of the Plaintiff in its entirety. According to the Defendant, she sent her

former husband to DOVVSU and the Plaintiff as a Police Officer was in charge of the case.

It is the case of the Defendant that they later entered into an amorous relationship for two

and half years. And that it was within this period of their amorous relationship that she

got pregnant. According to Defendant, the Plaintiff asked her to terminate the pregnancy,

but she refused and gave birth. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the DNA result is fake,

and the plaintiff is the father of her child. The defendant then counter claimed as follows:

‘Compensation from the Plaintiff for the 2 ½ years spent with Plaintiff as a wife,

cook, wash (sic) , slept and have(sic) intercourse with defendant.’

ISS