The Circuit Court in Techiman has awarded damages of 10,000 cedis against a policewoman, Mary Antwi, for breaching her promise to marry her concubine, William Baffour Gyan.
The court held, per the evidence on record, that both parties had exchanged promises to marry.
However, the court declined the plaintiff’s request for 20,000 cedis, which he claimed to have spent on constructing a building on land allegedly gifted to him by the defendant’s mother.
In his writ, the plaintiff stated that Mary Antwi had been his concubine until he decided to formalize the relationship into marriage in 2019. He averred that he financed and facilitated her training as a police officer at the Police Training School and purchased items such as clothes, luggage, and a ring in preparation for the marriage.
He further claimed that, in recognition of his commitment, the defendant’s mother gifted him a piece of land on which he built a house intended to serve as their matrimonial home. Based on these circumstances, William sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that the defendant had breached her promise to marry him.
He also asked the court to grant him ownership of the property with digital address TO-0520-7818 and to order the defendant to return certain items he had purchased for the performance of customary rites.
The case, presided over by Samuel Djane Kotey, was determined on four main issues;
Whether the parties and their families agreed to the marriage.
The court found sufficient evidence that an agreement existed between the parties and that they had exchanged promises to marry.
Whether the defendant breached the agreement.
The court held that Mary Antwi’s refusal to marry William constituted a breach of their agreement.
Whether the plaintiff purchased items for the marriage ceremony
The court found that the plaintiff did not purchase all the items he claimed. It therefore ordered the defendant to return only the kente cloth, white lace, and native sandals, which were proven to have been bought by the plaintiff. His claim for 30,000 cedis in respect of those items was dismissed.
Whether the plaintiff spent 20,000 cedis to build on the gifted land
The court ruled that William was entitled to ownership of the building he constructed, but not the land, as it had been gifted to both parties in anticipation of their future marriage.
Copied
