Court orders married man to pay GH¢40,000 for breaking promise to marry side chick
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has ruled that a person who promises to marry another individual can still be held liable for breaking that promise, even if they are already married under the Ordinance.
The court upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages to a woman whose former partner failed to marry her after years of their relationship, but dismissed her claim to ownership of his house.
The ruling was delivered in the case of Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33], where a three-member panel comprising Justices Baah, Kogyapwah and Dr Adusei clarified important aspects of Ghana’s common law on breach of promise to marry and property rights involving unmarried couples.
The dispute centred on a relationship between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu, which lasted from 2011 to 2017 and resulted in the birth of a son.
According to the court, Mr Anokye moved Ms Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child, organised the child’s naming ceremony and provided accommodation for both mother and child in his house at South Suntreso in Kumasi.
Ms Atsu told the court that Mr Anokye had promised to marry her and had also given her the house as a gift after she performed the customary aseda, or thanksgiving ceremony, to acknowledge the gift. She therefore sought ownership of the property, an injunction to prevent her eviction, damages for breach of promise to marry and other reliefs.
Mr Anokye denied making either promise. He argued that he had never gifted the house to Ms Atsu and insisted he could not have lawfully promised to marry her because he was already married under the Ordinance.
The High Court dismissed Ms Atsu’s ownership claim but awarded her GH¢40,000 for breach of promise to marry. It also allowed her and the child to remain in the house until she married or had a child with another man.
Mr Anokye appealed against that decision.
The Court of Appeal upheld the damages award, reaffirming that breach of promise to marry remains enforceable under Ghanaian common law where the required legal elements have been proven.
The judges said the evidence showed that Mr Anokye had introduced Ms Atsu to his uncle as his fiancée, persuaded her to continue with her pregnancy, relocated her to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child and provided accommodation for them. These actions, the court held, supported the finding that a genuine promise to marry had been made.
The court rejected Mr Anokye’s argument that his existing Ordinance marriage protected him from liability.
It ruled that an existing marriage cannot be used as a defence where a person has deliberately led another into believing that marriage would follow. The judges therefore upheld the GH¢40,000 award, describing it as damages for breach of promise to marry rather than a matrimonial settlement.
However, the Court of Appeal found that Ms Atsu had failed to prove ownership of the house.
It said a valid gift requires clear evidence that the donor intended to transfer ownership, that the transfer was publicly recognised and that the recipient accepted it in accordance with customary requirements.
The judges noted inconsistencies in Ms Atsu’s evidence over whether the required aseda ceremony had actually taken place and concluded that ownership of the property had never been transferred.
The court also ruled that the legal doctrine of advancement, which may presume that certain property transfers between spouses are intended as gifts, does not apply to couples who are not married. Since the parties never married, Ms Atsu could not rely on that principle to claim ownership.
Despite dismissing her property claim, the court found that Ms Atsu had spent more than GH¢25,000 completing improvements to the house with Mr Anokye’s knowledge.
The judges criticised the police for becoming involved in what they described as a civil property dispute and said fairness required that Ms Atsu be reimbursed for the money she invested in improving the property.
The court therefore ordered Mr Anokye to refund GH¢25,000, together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until the amount is fully paid.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order allowing Ms Atsu to remain in the house indefinitely and removed the injunction preventing Mr Anokye from recovering possession of the property.
However, the judges directed that he can only reclaim possession after paying the GH¢40,000 damages and the GH¢25,000 reimbursement. Ms Atsu was also given three months to find alternative accommodation.
The court stressed that its ruling does not affect Mr Anokye’s continuing legal obligation to provide maintenance and care for their child under the Children’s Act.
Source – Law Platform