MARGARET KUSI GYABAA v. C/INSP. JOHNSON GYABAA

JUDGMENT

A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J.A

[1] This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Cape Coast dated 30th January, 2015. In the said judgment which concerned a Matrimonial Cause, judgment was given partly in favour of the Petitioner/Respondent out of the reliefs that she claimed against the Respondent/Appellant. In this judgment the Petitioner/Respondent will be referred to as the Respondent while the Respondent/Appellant will be referred to as the Appellant.

Facts:

[2] The marriage between the parties was less than two years old as at the time of the Divorce Petition. Therefore, in accordance with the Rules, the Respondent sought the Leave of the Court to file the Petition. Although the Appellant initially opposed the Application for Leave, he later on abandoned that position and the Application for Leave to file the Divorce Petition was granted by the Court on 13th March 2011.

The Respondent accordingly filed the Petition for Divorce on 22nd March 2011 and amended same on 28th November 2012 pursuant to Leave granted on 26th November 2012.

[3] In the Amended Divorce Petition, the Respondent deposed to the following state of affairs: -

That the Respondent was previously married to the Appellant in 1974 until 1979 when the marriage was dissolved; that thereafter, the parties went their several ways but reconciled their differences and began to live together again as husband and wife from 2005; that their relationship was regularized when on 13th December 2009 they got married under the Customary Law and same was converted into an Ordinance Marriage on 27th December, 2009. Thereafter, they immediately settled in Cape Coast. They have one issue between them namely; Emmanuel Adjei Baffour, who was 35 years old as at 2012, the product of the earlier marriage that was dissolved in 1979.

[4] The Respondent further deposed that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation and cited the following four instances as evidence thereof: -

(a) That the Appellant had brought into the matrimonial home and was co-habiting with his mistress, one Mary Mantey with whom he had previous affair while she was thrown out of the matrimonial home.

(b) That the Appellant had completely abandoned her and would not maintain her.

(c) That the Appellant, in spite of interventions from both his Superior Officers and family members to promote reconciliation, would not reform but insists on divorce.

(d) That the Appellant has not lived with the Respo