Court Orders Married Man to Pay Sidechick GH¢40,000 After Breaking Marriage Promise
- The Court of Appeal in Kumasi ruled on a dispute between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu over property and a broken marriage promise
- Anokye argued his existing ordinance marriage meant he could not have legally promised to marry Atsu, who bore his child during their 2011–2017 relationship
- The court awarded Atsu GH¢40,000 in damages and ordered Anokye to refund GH¢25,000 she spent improving his South Suntreso property
Ghana’s top stories, now easier to find. Discover our new search feature!
A Ghanaian man's existing marriage did not protect him from liability after a court found he had deliberately led a woman to believe he would marry her.
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi, constituted by Justices Baah, Kogyapwah, and Dr. Adusei, delivered the ruling in the case of Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33], addressing two contested areas of Ghanaian family and property law: whether a broken promise to marry is legally enforceable, and whether living with a partner or improving their property creates any ownership rights.
Source: Getty Images
The Law Platform reported that Anokye and Atsu were in a romantic relationship from 2011 to 2017, during which they had a son together.
Anokye moved Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, organised the child's naming ceremony, and housed both the mother and the child in a property in South Suntreso, Kumasi.
Atsu maintained that he had gifted her the house, pointing to a customary "aseda" thanksgiving ceremony she said she performed in recognition of the gift. She also claimed he had promised to marry her.
Anokye denied both claims, insisting he had made no such promise and had never transferred ownership of the house. He further argued that because he was already married under the Ordinance, no valid promise to marry could have existed.
The High Court rejected Atsu's claim to the property but awarded her GH¢40,000 and allowed her to remain in the house until she married or had a child with someone else. Anokye appealed.
Court Rejects Marriage Loophole
The Court of Appeal upheld the damages award but clarified it constituted compensation for breach of promise to marry, not a matrimonial lump-sum payment.
The court held that three elements must be proven for such a claim: that a promise existed, that it was accepted and acted upon to the claimant's detriment, and that the promisor failed to honour it without lawful justification.
Evidence showed Anokye had introduced Atsu to his uncle as his fiancée, persuaded her to continue with the pregnancy, relocated her, and accepted parental responsibility.
The court found these acts consistent with a genuine promise of marriage. Crucially, it rejected the argument that an existing marriage could shield a person who had deliberately induced another into expecting to wed them.
Property Claim Falls, But Improvements Reimbursed
On the house, the court found Atsu's evidence inconsistent. She and her witnesses failed to produce convincing proof that any formal "aseda" had been performed, meaning ownership never legally transferred to her.
The court also ruled that the doctrine of advancement, which can presume a transfer of property between spouses as a gift, does not apply to unmarried partners.
However, because Atsu had spent more than GH¢25,000 completing construction on the property with Anokye's knowledge, the court ordered him to refund that amount with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017.
The court set aside the indefinite occupation order, giving Atsu three months to find alternative accommodation, while confirming Anokye's legal obligation to maintain their child under the Children's Act remains unaffected.
Don't miss out! Get your daily dose of sports news straight to your phone. Join YEN's Sports News channel on WhatsApp now!
Source: YEN.com.gh
