Ghana’s Court of Appeal in Kumasi has upheld an order requiring Benjamin Yeboah Anokye to pay GH¢40,000 to Priscilla Atsu after finding that he had promised to marry her and later failed to do so, despite already being married under the Ordinance.
The court ruled that an existing marriage does not automatically protect a person from liability for breach of promise to marry if they have deliberately led another individual to believe that a marriage would take place.
However, the three-member panel rejected Ms Atsu’s claim that she owned Mr Anokye’s house at South Suntreso in Kumasi. It also overturned an order allowing her to remain in the property indefinitely.
The ruling was delivered in the case of Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33]. The panel comprised Justices Baah, Kogyapwah and Dr Adusei.
The dispute arose from a relationship between Mr Anokye and Ms Atsu that 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 and organised the child’s naming ceremony. He also provided a home for Ms Atsu and the child at his property in South Suntreso.
Ms Atsu told the court that Mr Anokye had promised to marry her. She further claimed that he had given her the house after she performed the customary aseda, or thanksgiving ceremony, intended to acknowledge the gift.
She therefore sought ownership of the property, an injunction preventing her eviction, damages for breach of promise to marry and other remedies.
Mr Anokye denied making either promise. He said he had not given the house to Ms Atsu and argued that he could not have made a legally enforceable promise to marry because he was already married under the Ordinance.
The High Court rejected Ms Atsu’s claim to the property but awarded her GH¢40,000 for breach of promise to marry. It also permitted 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 a breach of promise to marry remains enforceable under Ghanaian common law when the necessary legal requirements have been established.
The judges said the evidence showed that Mr Anokye had introduced Ms Atsu to his uncle as his fiancee, encouraged her to continue with her pregnancy, moved her to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their son and provided accommodation for both of them.
Those actions, the court concluded, supported the finding that he had made a genuine promise to marry her.
The panel rejected his argument that his existing Ordinance marriage was a complete defence. It said a person could not deliberately create an expectation of marriage and then rely on an existing marriage to avoid responsibility.
The GH¢40,000 was described as compensation for breach of promise to marry, rather than a matrimonial settlement.
On the house, however, the court said Ms Atsu had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that ownership had been transferred to her. A valid gift, it explained, requires clear proof that the donor intended to transfer ownership, that the transfer was publicly recognised and that the recipient accepted it according to customary requirements.
The judges identified inconsistencies in Ms Atsu’s evidence about whether the required aseda ceremony had taken place. They therefore concluded that ownership of the house had never passed to her.
The court also ruled that the doctrine of advancement, which can create a presumption that certain transfers between spouses were intended as gifts, does not apply to unmarried couples. As Mr Anokye and Ms Atsu had never married, she could not rely on that principle.
Despite dismissing the ownership claim, the court found that Ms Atsu had spent more than GH¢25,000 on improvements to the property with Mr Anokye’s knowledge.
The judges criticised the police for intervening in what they considered a civil property dispute. They said fairness required Mr Anokye to reimburse Ms Atsu for the money she had invested in improving the house.
He was ordered to repay GH¢25,000, with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until the amount is paid in full.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. It removed the injunction preventing Mr Anokye from recovering possession and set aside the direction allowing Ms Atsu to remain in the property indefinitely.
Mr Anokye may only recover possession after paying both the GH¢40,000 damages and the GH¢25,000 reimbursement. Ms Atsu was given three months to secure alternative accommodation.
The court stressed that the ruling does not remove Mr Anokye’s continuing legal responsibility to provide maintenance and care for their child under the Children’s Act.
