Elfrida Naa Anyemah Quaye Vrs John Reginald Stephen [2022] GHACC 237 (10 November 2022)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GHANA HELD IN ACCRA ON 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE HER HONOUR KIZITA NAA KOOWA QUARSHIE, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE SUIT NO. C5/239/2022 ELFRIDA NAA ANYEMAH QUAYE VS JOHN REGINALD STEPHEN ========================================================= JUDGMENT ========================================================= On the 28th day of March, 2022, the Petitioner filed the instant petition praying the Honourable Court for a dissolution of the Ordinance Marriage celebrated between herself and Respondent on the 8th September, 2006. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971, Act 367 states under section 1 of the PART ONE, entitled Divorce that: 1. A petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to the marriage; (which the Petitioner has complied with and); 2. The sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Petitioner’s case Elfrida Naa Anyemah Quaye married the Respondent John Reginald Stephens under the Marriage Act (Cap 127) in a ceremony at the AMA on 8th September, 2006. Petitioner says that the Respondent has at all material times stayed in the United Kingdom (as he is a resident there), but stays at Adenta – Accra with the Petitioner when he comes to Ghana. Petitioner says that Respondent was last in town in 2014 and the parties have no issue between them. Again Petitioner claims that Respondent has deserted her for more than six years now and kept the Petitioner incommunicado for all those years and that due to the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour, the Petitioner has undergone distress, psychological and emotional trauma and has even contemplated suicide. Petitioner says all attempts at addressing the attitude and conduct of the Respondent to save the marriage has broken down and the continuous existence of the parties poses a great health risk to her and therefore she prays the Honourable Court to dissolve the said marriage. In compliance with Order 8 Rule 3 of C. I. 47 in respect of Service out of the Jurisdiction, the Applicant sought leave of the court to serve a notice of the petition for divorce on the Respondent out of the Jurisdiction on the 28th of March, 2022. The Petitioner again by supplementary affidavit in support of application to serve the petition outside of the jurisdiction sought leave of the court again to serve the Respondent since the court order was not ready when Petitioner filed the said application. Per Exhibit EAQ1, the Respondent was duly served with a notice of petition out of the jurisdiction together with a copy of the divorce petition and the court’s order dated 1st April, 2022 via DHL Worldwide Express Service on Friday, 8th April, 2022. Again, on the 23rd August, 2022 per exhibit EQ1, the Respondent was served with the Notice to Set Down Action for trial again by DHL Worldwide Express Service, Hearing Notice and Witness Statement. Again the Petitioner served the Respondent with a Hearing Notice via DHL Worldwide Express Service on Thursday, 6th October, 2022 also marked as Exhibit EQ 1. Of note to the court is the fact that Respondent at all material times was served with the appropriate notices and was aware that there was an ongoing divorce involving him at this Circuit Court in Ghana. In the opinion of the court, the Respondent has been given an opportunity to be heard and by his non-opposition of the ongoing case concurs with same. Evidence of the Petitioner The Witness Statement of the petitioner and exhibits were adopted by this court as its Evidence-in-Chief on the 13th October, 2022. The petitioner as already stated said the marriage between herself and the Respondent has broken down beyond reconciliation due to Respondent’s unreasonable behavior. Paragraph 8 of the witness statement states and I quote: i. ii. The Respondent has deserted me and failed or refused to talk to me since 2014 with the result that I do not know the whereabouts of the Respondent. At all material times after the marriage the Respondent and I agreed that steps be taken to get me a visa to visit him in the United Kingdom to know where he lives. iii. However, when I called him in 2014 to inform him that I have obtained a visa to enable me to travel to the United Kingdom, the Respondent for no apparent reason dropped the line and immediately blocked my number with the result that since 2014, I have not set eyes or heard from the Respondent and we have been incommunicado to date. The Respondent has refused and or failed to maintain me as a wife since 2014 The Respondent has also denied me sex since 2014. iv. v. Issue to be determined For the court to grant a divorce petition, the law states that the marriage between the parties should have broken down beyond reconciliation. Section 1(2) of Act 367. This court makes reference to section 2(1) of Act 367 which lists the facts for proof of breakdown of marriage. “Proof of breakdown of marriage” For the purpose of showing that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation, the petitioner shall satisfy the court with one or more of the following fact; 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 difference. Proof of breakdown of marriage In this particular instance apart from Section 1(a) all the other subsections are applicable and overwhelmingly demonstrate that the marriage between the parties have irretrievably broken down. The Law of Family Relations in Ghana by William Cornelius Ekow Daniels page 308 states the test of unreasonable behavior as follows; “All that the Petitioner is required to do in this content is to give particulars or the extent of the behavior of the Respondent which has necessitated the presentation of the petition. Thereafter, he is required to establish that as a result of that particular behavior he cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent’. In the case of Hughes v Hughes (1973) 2 GLR 342 Sarkodee J., in his judgment said; “To succeed, the Petitioner must show that the Respondent’s conduct reached a certain degree of severity that no reasonable person would tolerate” In Happe v Happe & Anor. {1974} 2GLR 186 the Husband a native of Netherlands was the Petitioner. They were married under the Marriage Ordinance and domiciled in the Netherlands but resident in Ghana. The Petitioner filed a petition in 1972 for divorce on grounds of cruelty. According to him, the Respondent frequently heaped insults on him in public, once when Petitioner was in a meeting with his solicitor the Respondent went there created a scene and demanded her Marriage Certificate from the Petitioner. The Petitioner once seated on an aircraft ready to take off for the Netherlands said the Respondent entered with two policemen arrested Petitioner and detained him for two hours before he was released. The court held that the Respondent’s conduct was unreasonable and ordered a dissolution of the marriage. See the cases of Poku-Wusu v Poku-Wusu (1973) 2 GLR 349 and Addo v Addo (1973) 2 GLR “Whatever test is applied demands that the court should have regard to all the relevant matters appertaining to the marriage and to the individual spouses before it as well as to their individual perceptions of each other in order to determine what is reasonable” pages 308-309 The Law of Family Relations in Ghana by William Cornelius Ekow Daniels (supra). In the case of Danquah v Danquah (1979) GLR 371 @ 361, Osei Hwere J said: “Act 367 imposes on the court a series of restriction which is unique. For having established by section 1(2) that the sole ground for granting a petition for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation and having by section 2(1) laid down those facts, the proof of which shall, prima facie, show that the marriage has so broken down, Section 2(3) checks the court from rushing in to grant a petition for divorce unless the court is satisfied, on all the evidence that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage”. This Court has looked at the facts, evaluated the evidence and firmly believes that the marriage between Elfrida Naa Anyemah Quaye v John Reginald Stephens has broken down beyond reconciliation. The court makes an order for a divorce decree on this 10th November, 2022. The Marriage Certificate No. 2001/MC/2006 dated 8th September, 2006 is hereby cancelled. The Petitioner is to apply to the Registry for a Divorce Certificate and the Entry of Judgment and serve same on the Respondent. (SGD) H/H KIZITA NAA KOOWA QUARSHIE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE 6