The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has ruled that a person can be held liable for breaking a promise to marry, even where that person was already married under the Ordinance at the time the promise was made.

In a decision involving Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33], the court clarified that breach of promise to marry remains actionable under Ghanaian common law when the required legal conditions are proven.

The court, constituted by Justices Baah, Kogyapwah and Dr Adusei, also ruled that being in a relationship or contributing to the improvement of a partner’s property does not automatically give a person ownership rights over that property.

Coconut seller fined for dumping husks into drain

According to thelawplatform.online, the case arose from a relationship between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu, which lasted from 2011 to 2017 and produced a son.

During the relationship, Anokye relocated Priscilla Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, took responsibility for their child and provided accommodation for her and their son at a house in South Suntreso, Kumasi.

Priscilla Atsu later claimed that Anokye had gifted the house to her after she performed a customary thanksgiving ceremony known as “aseda” to acknowledge the gift. She also argued that he had promised to marry her but failed to honour that promise.

She therefore asked the court to declare her the owner of the property and award her damages for breach of promise to marry.

However, Anokye denied giving her the house as a gift and argued that he never promised marriage. He also relied on the fact that he was already married under the Ordinance.

During the hearing, the Court of Appeal rejected his argument, stating that an existing marriage cannot be used as a defence where evidence shows that a person created the belief that another marriage would take place.

The court found that Anokye’s actions, including introducing Priscilla Atsu as his fiancée, relocating her and accepting responsibility for their child, supported the claim that there was a genuine promise of marriage.

It therefore upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages for breach of promise to marry.

However, the court dismissed Priscilla Atsu's claim that she owned the house, stating that she failed to provide sufficient evidence that the property had been gifted to her.

The judges explained that a valid gift requires proof of the donor’s intention, acceptance by the recipient and evidence that ownership was transferred. The court also noted that the evidence presented regarding the alleged “aseda” ceremony was inconsistent.

The court further held that the doctrine of advancement, which may presume a gift between spouses, does not apply to unmarried couples.

Despite losing the ownership claim, Priscilla Atsu was awarded GH¢25,000 as reimbursement for money she spent improving the property.

During the ruling, the court however criticised the police for intervening in the civil property dispute, stressing that such matters should be resolved through the courts.

In its final orders, the Court of Appeal set aside the decision allowing Priscilla Atsu to remain indefinitely in the house but directed that she be given three months to secure alternative accommodation.

The court also ordered that possession of the property could only be recovered after payment of the GH¢40,000 damages and GH¢25,000 reimbursement.

The ruling, however, does not affect Anokye’s continuing responsibility to provide care and maintenance for their child under the Children’s Act.

With additional files from thelawplatform.online

MA

Your Dream Property Is Just a Few Clicks Away – GhanaWeb Real Estate