GSLHub

“…Once it has been proved therefore by proper evidence that the parties have agreed and have lived together in the sight of the world as man and wife that of itself is sufficient; the court should hold that the parties are married according to native custom…” Dean J, in Quaye v Kuevi[1]

The recent controversy after the death of the renowned musical icon, Charles Kwadwo Fosu aka Daddy Lumba[2] which resulted in the case of Akosua Serwaa Fosuh v Abusua – Panin Kofi Owusu, Priscilla Ofori and Transitions Funeral Home[3] has brought to the fore the subject of marriages recognized by the law, how some of the marriages are formed and the incidents, how marriages are proved in the event of a dispute and how they are dissolved. The Plaintiff Akosua Serwaah Fosuh commenced an action against the Head of Family of Charles Kwadwo Fosush aka Daddy Lumba (1^st Defendant) and Priscilla Ofori (aka Odo Broni), 2^nd Defendant, seeking declarations that she is the only surviving spouse of Daddy Lumba among other reliefs. The decision by the Kumasi High Court presided over by Her Lordship Dorinda Smith-Arthur has generated further controversy among the parties and sections of the citizenship, with many expressing surprise and shock. The Honourable Court ruled on 28^th November 2025 that both Akosua Serwaa (Plaintiff) and Odo Broni (1^st Defendant) were spouses at customary law and hence they should both perform the widowhood rites of their husband in accordance with custom.

The judgment of the court aside, the controversy has made people ask a lot of questions on the issue of marriage, the effect of an ordinance marriage vis a vis customary law marriage, how marriages are proved, rights of spouses upon the demise of the other spouse. etc.

In this piece, an attempt is made by the Author to provide some education by explaining the concept of marriage under Ghana law. He discusses the various forms of marriages known to law, and how they are contracted and dissolved, the co-existence or otherwise of customary marriage and ordinance, the concept of ‘Sidechicks’ and ‘Side Niggars’, whether concubinage over a period of time can turn into a marriage, whether there can be a marriage at customary law without having a formal marriage ceremony, whether a long period of separation between married couples can amount to dissolution of the marriage among others. The Author shall discuss the general law on the subject to underscore the fact that the judgment in the Daddy Lumba case is sound, and the principles therein are known to law. The Author shall comment on the decision by the High Court Kumasi in the Daddy Lumba case relative to the timeless principles of marriage and the law in Ghana.

What is Marriage?

Marriage is a union between the family of a man and the family of a woman where the man and woman decide to spend their lives together as spouses. Under customary law, the union is not necessarily between the individuals but their families. Under Ordinance, the marriage is between a man and a woman who have agreed to spend their lives together. In the case of Hyde v Hyde, Lord Penance said, “Marriage (ordinance) is the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others.”  This speaks to the monogamous nature of ordinance marriages.

Types of Marriages under Ghana law and their consequences

There are three forms of marriages known to Ghana law. These marriages are

(1) Customary Law Marriages

(2) Ordinance Marriages

(3) Mohammedan Marriages

Due to the controversy and public interest the ‘Daddy Lumba’ case had generated, the Court took time to throw light on the three types of marriages known to the laws of Ghana. For purposes of this paper, the Author shall limit himself to the Customary Marriage and Ordinance Marriages under Ghana law.

Customary Marriage is a union between the family of the man and the family of the woman. At custom, marriage brings the two families together where the union confers rights on the parties and their families and imposes responsibilities on the parties and their families. This marriage is conducted in accordance with the custom in the community of the parties depending on whether it is patrilineal or matrilineal. This implies that the manner in which marriage is contracted is community specific. In the case of Yaotey v Quaye[4] Ollennu J (as he then was), the respected Ghanaian jurist, defined marriage as “a union of the man’s family and the woman’s family, imposing rights and duties on both families.” By law, customary marriage is polygamous or potentially so. This means that at customary law, a man can marry more than one wife and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the law is that at custom, a man can marry as many women as he can harmoniously live with and conveniently manage. In the case of Graham v Graham[5] the Court speaking through Kingsley-Nyinah J (as he then was) compared Customary law marriage with Ordinance thus, “But a marriage under Ordinance is strictly and essentially monogamous. It is a tight union confining the male-contractor to one woman to the exclusion of all others for as long as both parties shall live and the marriage subsists and is not dissolved. That is not the case with a marriage under customary law where the union is comparatively loose and the man is not precluded for taking unto himself as many wives as he can harmoniously live with and conveniently manage’. His Lordship[6] confirmed the recognition and acceptability of customary law when he opined that, “Customary law marriages, though essentially polygamous, are nonetheless accepted and recognized by the courts of this land.”

Traditionally there were some essential requirements to form a customary law marriage which. In the case of Re Caveat by Clara Sackitey,[7] the respected Ollennu J (as he then was) propounded what has become known to lawyers as Ollennu’s four (4) essentials of Customary Law Marriage as follows.

1. Agreement between the parties to live together as man and wife.

• Consent of the family of the man that he should have the woman to be his wife; that consent may be indicated by the man’s family acknowledging the woman as wife of the man.

• Consent of the family of the woman that she should be joined in marriage to the man; that consent is indicated by the acceptance of drink from the man or his family or merely by the family of the woman acknowledging the man as the husband of the woman.

• Consummation”

Regarding formal customary law marriage these are the essential requirements. The parties being man and woman must agree to marry each other; the agreement must be with the consent of their respective families. The parties must also consummate the marriage failing which the marriage may be voided.

4 types of customary marriages

The law recognizes four different types of customary marriages. It is not in all marriages that there are marriage rites or ceremonies. In that regard, the law sometimes does away with what lawyers have come to know as Ollennu’s Four essentials. When any of these conditions are met, a marriage is established regardless of the absence of any formality or programme. These four types are discussed by William E. Offei in his celebrated book, Family Law in Ghana, 3^rd Edition as follows

1. The first is the ordinary one in which a man and a woman agree to marry. The man approaches the woman’s parents or family. The woman’s parents or family agree to the marriage. The man makes a present or presents in cash or kind as required by the appropriate custom to the woman’s parents or family, and the marriage is concluded. This is the normal customary marriage known to the Akan custom. The Fante Scholar, John Mensah Sarbah in his Fante Customary Laws[8] says, “Briefly stated… when a man desires to marry a woman, he goes personally or send someone to her parents or family for her hand. If his proposal is agreeable to the family and he receives their consent, the ‘consawment’ money or token, valuing as much as he can afford, is sent to them. That is all that is necessary to constitute the marriage tie.” In the case of Asumah v Khair[9] to which the Author shall return, the court held that, “that where a man desires to marry, he applies to the woman’s family for consent, taking to them certain customary gifts which vary according to his means. If the family give their consent by accepting the gifts that concludes a marriage valid in customary law.” In this first type of customary marriage, we see all the Four Essentials of Ollennu as discussed earlier, i.e. the agreement between the man and woman to marry, the consent of the family of the man to marry the woman and the consent of the woman’s family to be married to the man and consummation. Consummation is the first act of sexual relationship between the man and woman and at law it had rules around it.

• The second type of customary law marriage is one in which the four essentials are not present. In the case of Asumah v Khair[10] Ollennu gave the scenario of the second type of marriage s follows, “Again a woman who has been married according to custom may not have been co-habiting with her husband and declines to co-habit with him. It is discovered that she is being induced by another man to break the marriage. If that other man is willing to marry her, the girl’s family would obtain the consent of the husband to break the marriage formally and would refund to him all the expenses which he had incurred on the customary fees and presents. When that has been done, and the new suitor has paid the same amount to the family, he steps into the shoes of the original husband and becomes the lawful husband of the girl.” This means that there is no formal ceremony. The facts of this case were that a certain Samuel Addo was married to Hannah Asumah by custom in which Addo had incurred a customary fee of about £40, but the parties did not live together. A certain Harry Khair however fell in love with Hannah Asumah and told Asumah’s father that if Samuel Addo is prepared to terminate his marriage with Hannah Asumah and accept the £40, he Harry Khair was willing to refund same to Samuel Addo so that Harry Khair marries Hannah Asumah. This was agreed and Harry Khair paid £40 to Hannah Asumah’s father who in turn paid it to Samuel Addo who withdrew from the marriage. Hannah Asumah later became pregnant whereupon her father sued Harry Khair for seduction. In his defence, Harry Khair contended that, he had been lawfully married to Hannah Asumah and so seduction does not arise. The court of first instance held that there was no marriage because there was no marriage rites performed between Harry Khair and Hannah Asumah, whereupon Harry Khair appealed. The appellate court held that, as soon as Harry Khair paid the customary fees and presents, calculated at £40, he became Hannah Asumah’s husband and hence there was no question of seduction. Ollennu J (as he then was) espoused the principle thus, “that where the wife in a customary marriage declines to cohabit with her husband, and is being induced by another man (who is willing to marry her) to break the marriage, the girl’s family. On obtaining the husband’s consent to the breaking of the marriage, refund to the husband all the same amount, he is deemed to be validly married to the girl.”

• The third type of customary marriage is, where a man impregnates a girl, the girl’s family identifies the man as the author of the pregnancy, the man sends a drink and a small token admitting liability and the girl’s family accept those items. This under customary law constitutes a valid marriage, even though there is no performance of marriage rites. In the case of Asumah v Khair cited supra, the learned jurist Ollennu J said that, “Thus a girl becomes pregnant and her family upon discovering her condition, ascertain from her who was responsible. They send to the man to enquire from him. If the man sends some drink, admitting liability, and sends a further drink or present (however small the drink or present may be – perhaps a small token sum of money), and if the girl’s family accepts the present in addition to the fee on admitting liability, a valid marriage is thereby concluded.”

• The fourth type of customary law marriage occurs where a man makes a girl pregnant and presents money and drinks to the girl’s parents or relatives to acknowledge authorship of the pregnancy. Thereafter the man does not present any additional money or drinks to the said parents or relatives. Instead, he cohabits with the girl and performs duties which a husband normally performs.[11] In the case of Essilfie and Another v Quarcoo[12] a man impregnated a girl and the man’s family presented drinks to the girl’s family to acknowledge authorship of the pregnancy. The girl and man co-habited in the man’s house for seven (7) years. They had two children. The girl’s mother regularly visited them, on the demise of the girl’s father, the man upon the request of the girl’s family, performed the custom of a son-in-law according to custom. Lutterodt J (as she then was) held that there was a valid marriage between them.  The Court held that, “on the authorities there were two forms of valid marriages known to our customary law: first the ordinary case where a man sought the hand of the woman from her family and with their consent performed the necessary ceremonies of payment of drinks, customary fees and dowry; and secondly, where although the customary rites had not been performed, the parties had consented to live in the eyes of the world as man and wife and their families had consented that they should do so, and the parties actually lived as man and wife in the eyes of the world. The consent of the family could be either actual or express or implied and constructive. Since on evidence after the defendant had admitted responsibility of the deceased’s pregnancy they lived together in the defendant’s house as man and wife in the sight of the whole world until she died; the plaintiff’s family obliged the defendant to perform the necessary customary rites of a son-in-law on the death of the deceased’s father and furthermore, the defendant provided the shroud and the grave for the burial of the deceased in the capacity of a husband. Accordingly, all the ingredients essential to a customary law marriage between the deceased and the defendant had been proved.”

From the above case law, one can deduce that for the court to establish a marriage relationship, the four essentials are not really all there is to it in terms of the requirements. The subject of family consent is one that has become a challenge due to changing times and modernization. According to William E. Offei,[13] the learned writer, Dr. K.O Adinkrah, holds a view similar to that of Omari Sasu J, the learned author was of the view that with rapid changes in social conditions it is becoming increasingly unrealistic to regard the consent of the families of a man and a woman as an essential of customary marriage.”[14] It is therefore obvious that the consent of families may not always be present expressly in order to establish customary marriage as per the Ollennu J’s four essentials. The four essentials only satisfy the conditions of the first type of customary law marriage. In the recent case of Irene Gorleku v Justice Pobee & Another[15] which the Author shall discuss in detail, there was no marriage rites or celebrations, but the parties had lived in the eyes of the world as husband and wife for about nineteen years. When the issue of whether a spousal relationship existed between the parties, the Court in reliance of previous authorities answered the question in the affirmative that the parties were married couples.

It is apposite at the stage to underscore the fact that customary laws are part of the laws of Ghana. Article 11 (1)(e) of the 1992 Constitution provides that, “The laws of Ghana shall comprise of ….. common law”. Under Article 11(2) “the common law of Ghana shall comprise the rules of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrines of equity and the rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature.” (emphasis the Author’s). Customary law is defined thus, “For purposes of this article, “customary law means the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana.”[16] It therefore stands to reason that in deciding cases before the court, they are entitled to rely on all the laws including the customary law acceptable to the particular community.

Ordinance Marriage

Ordinance marriage is statutory in nature. The incidence of Ordinance marriage are different from the incidence of customary marriages. Ordinance marriage is governed by the Marriages Act, 1884-1985 (Part 3) formerly called Marriage Ordinance, Cap 127. One key incident of ordinance marriage is that it is monogamous and strictly so. The man is entitled to marry only one woman whilst the marriage subsists. Ordinance marriage has strict conditions to be complied with before it can be valid. If these requirements are not complied with, the ordinance marriage fails and would be invalidated. For instance, the ordinance marriage must be conducted at the recognized and licenced venue, the officiants must be recognized and licenced, there must be the publications of banns for twenty-one days before the celebration among other conditions.

The Ordinance marriage may be under the Marriage Officers Licence (Church wedding) in which the Reverend Ministers are appointed as Marriage Officers, publication of banns is done for three Sundays, the ceremony can be conducted within three moths after the third publication of the banns. It could also be by the Registrar’s Certificate usually not done in church; one party must give notice of the marriage to the District Registrar and notice is usually displayed for caveats or objections. It could also be by Special Licence for emergency cases which does away with the regular requirements.

Conversion of Marriage

Conversion is where parties married under one system of marriage, change the marriage into another form of marriage. Usually, conversion is where a marriage under custom with all its incidents is converted to one under ordinance. The learned William E. Offei in his book, Family law in Ghana 3^rd Ed. Opined that, “By conversion is meant the change of marriage from one category to another”.[17] Conversion is therefore where a polygamous or potentially polygamous marriage is changed into a monogamous marriage by following the requirements for a successful conversion.

In the Ghanaian setting of marriage, most parties start with the customary marriage usually called, “Engagement” or” Traditional Marriage”. This ‘Engagement’ or ‘traditional’ marriage is usually done a day or week before the “wedding” or white wedding” is done either at the church, District Assembly or the Court. When parties purport to go through these processes, what they have done in the eyes of the law is to convert their customary marriage which is polygamous or potentially so, into a strictly monogamous marriage. In the eye of the law and in the view of the Author, one is not a sine qua non to the other, meaning that, it is not a requirement to be married under custom before a successful ordinance can be contracted. The ordinance marriage is a complete marriage on its own and the parties can decide to go straight to marry under ordinance without necessarily marrying under customary law. It is therefore the view of the Author that, the common practice during ordinance ceremonies, where ministers or officiants would ask, ‘who gives the lady’s hand in marriage?’, is wrong. Under ordinance, unless the parties are less than twenty-one years, there is no requirement for parental consent. More erroneous in the humble view of the Author, is the question to the father of the lady as to whether the man had come home to perform the needed requirements under custom. Those questions are needless in the eyes of the law, because the performance of such is not a condition precedent to contracting an ordinance marriage.

When parties marry under custom on a Friday and have the wedding under the ordinance on the Saturday thereafter or any other day, what they have done in effect is that they have dissolved the customary marriage and assumed responsibilities under a new category of marriage called ordinance. This fact, most people are not aware is the position of the law and people who get to appreciate this subsequently question the rationale for so doing.

A successful conversion implies that the parties have followed all the requirements of the Marriages Act (Cap 127.) It is only when the requirements are met that the marriage is successfully converted. When the conversion is not successful, the law is that the customary marriage still subsists. In the case of Setse v Setse[18], which shall be discussed presently, the court held that the marriage had not been contracted under Marriage Ordinance and hence the court lacked jurisdiction. The attempted conversion or purported conversion was not successful. If the statutory requirements for conversion to ordinance are not met, the conversion is of no legal effect and the previous marriage at custom subsists. In the case of Carr v Carr[19], the Honourable Court took the view that, “the issue of a marriage certificate under the Marriage Ordinance does not make the marriage valid under the Ordinance if the provisions of section 31 of the Marriage Ordinance were not complied with before the celebration of the marriage…”[20] His Lordship Prempeh J further said, “since the mandatory provisions of section 31 of the Marriage Ordinance (Cap. 127) were not complied with before the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised, there was no marriage under the Ordinance and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.”

Blessing of Marriages not necessarily Conversion

Closely related to the subject of conversion is the concept of blessing. Usually, persons who marry under custom take their marriage to the church for their pastors to bless their marriage without necessarily following the requirements of ordinance marriage. The unfortunate part is that some go through this process believing same to be a conversion only to be hit with reality when it matters most. The law is that blessing does not amount to conversion, unless it follows the requirements for ordinance marriages. In Carr v Carr, the parties were married at custom, they later had their marriage solemnised by a Minister of the Methodist Church Ghana in Obuasi. Prior to the ceremony, the Minister did not obtain from the parties a Registrar’s certificate or a licence issued by the Principal Registrar of Marriage, nor did he himself issue a Marriage Officer’s certificate as required by the Marriage Ordinance.  The effect of the failure to comply with the requirement was that the ceremony was a blessing and not conversion. In the case of Setse v Setse cited supra, there was just a blessing of marriage between the parties and after the ceremony of the blessing the officiating minister issued to them a certificate of marriage under the ordinance. The conversion was held to be unsuccessful. In the case of Re Appiah (Deceased); Yeboah v Appiah[21], the defendant was the wife of John Owusu Appiah of Akim Swedru and the plaintiff was the deceased’s customary successor. The couples were married under custom in 1939. In 1944 the superintendent minister in charge resolved with the church leaders to appoint the deceased as a Steward subject to their marriage being blessed. The deceased accepted offer  for Stewardship and at a meeting at the Mission house attended by the deceased, the Reverend Minister and other members, bible verses were read and prayers offered, after which the Minister issued a Marriage Certificate stating that the deceased and the defendant duly married in accordance with customary law have this day solemnly promised before God and in the presence of His people to observe the Christian law respecting marriage. On the issue of whether the marriage was under ordinance the court answered in the negative that there was no ordinance because the relevant sections of the statute were not complied with. The court said, “I can safely take judicial notice of the fact that Christian Churches in Ghana, notably the protestants, recognise customary marriages…which receive blessing and restrict parties to such marriages by placing an injunction on the man from contracting any further marriage. In fact they do not know of divorce but this does not necessarily make these marriages monogamous in the sense understood under the Ordinance. Disobedience of the injunction carries no legal sanction because the law does not recognise legally. Sanctions of ex-communication or suspension may however be enforced by the church against the disobedient servant…”

The learning therefore is that, a mere blessing ceremony in church does not amount to conversion. To amount to conversion, the requirements of the law must be complied with failing which the ordinance marriage would fail.

Is Ordinance Marriage Superior or does it prevail over Customary law marriage

It is often believed that Ordinance marriage is superior to marriage at custom. This statement in the Author’s view is a falsity both in fact and in law. Ordinance and customary marriages are complete marriages on their own and each can exist independent of each other. They only have some few different incidents, for instance ordinance is monogamous stricto senso. As stated above the two marriages cannot co-exist in respect of two different women. In the event of having a man married to two women under the two different forms of marriage, upon the demise of the man, the court may be called upon to determine the status and rights of the women.  Although the ordinance marriage in relation to one woman only converts the marriage from customary to ordinance, in respect of the two women, the court would have to make a determination of the times of the marriages, which one pre-dated the other. For example, if the man married woman, Ama, under customary and converted to ordinance and later married woman Barbara, under custom or even ordinance, then ipso facto the marriage to woman B is invalid. This is so because at the time the man married woman Barbara, the man had a monogamous marriage with woman Ama in existence, and which marriage is under ordinance and does not admit of multiple women as partners. It is, however, possible, and there is a precedent to this, for a court to invalidate an ordinance marriage in favour of a customary marriage, when the ordinance was contracted after a previously existing customary marriage. In the view of the Author, Ordinance marriage is not superior to customary marriage, it seems to offer protection to women in its monogamous feature such that a man cannot marry another woman in addition unless the marriage is dissolved. If a man marries under custom and conducts a conversion with the same woman, then the customary marriage falls and gives way to the ordinance marriage.

In the case of Gloria Aba Kingful v Vida Kafa Tayam[22], per the facts, the Plaintiff was married to the deceased in the 1980s under custom at Goaso. Their marriage was later converted to ordinance in 2017. Upon the death of the husband, the family nominated Plaintiff, the Elder son of the deceased and the Customary successor of the deceased to apply for the Letters of Administration. The defendant filed a caveat on the basis that she is also a spouse, which was denied by plaintiff who was the only wife known to the family of the deceased. The court asked the parties to commence an action for determination of which of them was the spouse. The plaintiff contended that it was sometime in the year 2000 that she realized that her husband, the deceased, had had a child with the defendant. The defendant contended that the deceased came on transfer to Kumasi and had an amorous relationship with the defendant which relationship produced six children. The defendant contended that aside having six children with the deceased, he also, married her under Navrongo customary law. The Plaintiff and the deceased subsequently had a wedding and converted their marriage to ordinance. The High Court Kumasi, speaking through His Lordship Justice Frederick Tetteh, held that the plaintiff and defendant were both married at custom. The court declared the ordinance marriage a nullity since the ordinance marriage was contracted at the time when the deceased was customarily married to the defendant as well. The Honourable Court concluded on this issue thus, “….In view of the above, I am of the considered view that, the subsequent Ordinance marriage between the deceased and the Plaintiff was a nullity on the ground that the deceased did not have the capacity to go into the ordinance marriage in view of his two (2) customary marriages subsisting at the same time. In the absence of any evidence on record indicating that, the marriage between the deceased and the Defendant had been dissolved prior to the Ordinance marriage. I have, however no option but to hold that the Ordinance marriage celebrated on the 25^th February 2017 at the Mt. Zion Methodist Church Kotei, Kumasi is null, void and of no legal effect. In effect, the marriage is void ab initio”. In effect the conversion of the marriage in 2017 failed because of the existing customary law marriage to the defendant.

Does Concubinage amount to a valid marriage?

Marriage as defined is a committed relationship involving two parties and their families as the case may be. Concubinage on the other hand has been defined by the Black’s Law dictionary[23] as “…A relationship of a man and women who cohabit without the benefit of marriage.” Per the 9^th edition of Black’s Law dictionary, “A concubine is a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not married. A concubine is often considered a wife without title. A concubine’s status arises from the permanent cohabitation of a man and a woman as husband and wife although without the benefit of marriage”. The concubinage is more like an ‘mpenatwe’ so although the parties live together, there is no marriage relationship presumably. The controversy in this area of the law is whether long concubinage or cohabitation can become a valid marriage with the rights and incidents of same. The views are divided, while some answer the question in the affirmative, others take the view that no matter how long parties cohabit, it does not become a marriage. The Author, belongs to the school of thought the propose that long concubinage can translate into marriage with all the incidents and the Author receives fortification in this view from the decided cases in Ghanaian family law jurisprudence in this area.  Several cases have made decisions that points to the fact that when a man and a woman lives together in the eyes of the world as husband and wife, a marriage can be inferred and valid one at that.

In the case of Essilfie v Quarcoo cited supra, there was evidence before the court that, the man impregnated the woman (deceased), his family sent drinks to the family of the woman to acknowledge responsibility for the pregnancy and thereafter the man lived with the deceased in his house for seven years until she died at birth survived by two children she had with the man. In addition to this, it was established that while the parties were living together, the plaintiff (mother of the deceased woman) had been visiting the couple in their home, that on the death of the woman’s father, the man at the request of the woman’s family performed the custom required of a son-in-law, that the deceased woman in a nomination form she filled with her employers indicated on the form that she was married and the man at the request of the woman’s family provided the shroud and the grave used in burying the deceased woman. It was from these evidence that the court found that there was a marriage relationship between them and hence the defendant was a husband. The court took the view that having lived together for about seven years in the eye of the world as husband and wife, their families were aware and did not object to same etc.

More recently in the case of Irene Gorleku v Justice Pobee[24] the respondent had cohabited with the deceased for nineteen years and had lived as husband and wife. Upon the death of the man, the woman commenced an action against two of the children of the deceased for applying and obtaining Letters of Administration of her ‘husband’ fraudulently without notice to her and her consent as a spouse. It was the defence and contention of the appellants children that the respondent only cohabited with their late father in the same house and lived in the eyes of the public as man and wife, without any customary rites performed to formalize their relationship. It was even the contention of the children that when their father was alive, he made his intention known to them as children that he did not intend to marry the respondent and so their relationship was just a consensual uncommitted cohabitation. On appeal, His Lordship Yaw Appau J.A (as he then was) dismissed the appellant’s claim that the respondent was not the spouse of their deceased father. The Court held that, “That there are two forms of marriage; one involves the presentation of drinks and the other is devoid of formalities like the presentation of drinks. In the case of the first, which is the ordinary case the presentation of drinks and other items by the man’s family to the woman’s family and their acceptance by the woman’s family, constitute the express consent of both families to the marriage. The second case involves the existence of a valid customary law marriage between a man and a woman without the express consent of the families manifested by the presentation and acceptance of drinks and other items.”

The learned Author, Frederica Ahwireng Obeng,[25] in her book, At a glance, Contemporary Principles of Family Law in Ghana is of the view that, of the four essentials, …the most important essential of the for essentials is the agreement between a man and a woman to live as husband and wife…. She continues thus, “There must however be evidence that the parties lived in fact as husband and wife. Cohabitation for a considerable length of time coupled with having children together, acquiring joint property, attending functions together and performing customary rites in each other’s family will lead a court to conclude that there was an informal marriage”[26]

It is the Author’s view that, in the Daddy Lumba case, with the inability of the Plaintiff to prove the German civil marriage, even if there was no marriage ceremony between the deceased Daddy Lumba and Odo Broni, by their conduct and living together in the eyes of the world as man and wife, marriage could be established per the established law above.

Indeed, the Judge Dorinda Smith-Arthur in the ‘Daddy Lumba case’, brilliantly elucidated the position of the law  thus, “I must state that even if they had not  contracted their customary marriage in 2010, per Ashanti custom and as confirmed by PW2, the expert witness on customary laws of Asanti, D2 had become  a wife of the deceased. This is because there are varied ways a customary marriage can be contracted, and it goes beyond celebration. The witness gave many instances under cross examination where relationship between a man and a woman can be deemed as customary marriage and I accept his evidence. One of such is when an elderly man enters into an amorous relationship with a young woman and if it is noticed, the family of a woman will sit with the man and if he accepts to live with the woman as his wife, the parties become a man and wife. Or when a man impregnates a woman, accepts the pregnancy, names the child and continues to live with her as husband and wife to the knowledge of all then by their practice, they are deemed as husband and wife.”[27]

The above cases show that it is possible for people to live together in a concubinage and still will be regarded as married couples. The Court before so determining would look at the circumstance under which the parties had live and conducted their lives.

The other school of thought is that no matter how long a man and woman remain in concubinage, same does not become marriage. This view, although supported with some judicial decisions, the Author does not share that view and may distinguish same.

In the case of Badu v Boakye[28] known widely in law for its akotoagyan principle, the Plaintiff sued the defendant for damages of breach of promise to marry at custom, damages for assault and battery and for medical expenses. The Plaintiff alleged that she was married to the defendant around Easter 1969 after she had been conceived by the defendant. They lived together as man and wife until 1970 when plaintiff was asked to leave the matrimonial home because the defendant did not want to continue the marriage/ Her belongings were thrown and when she sought to bring them back she was assaulted and later admitted to the hospital. The defendant admitted that they were living together but denied that it was a husband and wife relationship. He further alleged that two months after meeting the plaintiff, the defendant presented some drinks and money to the plaintiff’s parents and family as akotoagyan to enable him to consort freely with the plaintiff, with the hope that if he found her conduct suitable, he would marry her. When he realized she was not a suitable wife, he again presented drinks to her family to terminate the akotoagyan relationship. The bone of contention that for the relevance of this paper fell for determination were; (1) whether the payment of akotoagyan constituted marriage or unconditional promise to marry at custom, (2) whether a woman staying with a man under akotoagyan custom was entitled to sue for maintenance or a breach of promise to marry. The Sunyani High Court, speaking through Osei Hwere J (as he then was) held inter alia that, “akotoagyan was the drink provided by a man to inform parents of a woman with who he was cohabiting about the fact of their concubinage. The drink provided might be either one-half bottle or a full-size bottle of Schnapps and, as the name implied, it meant “bottle taken for nothing” or “drink taken for nothing”. The providing of akotoagyan created no legal relationship between the man and the woman as the drink was not refundable if the woman decided to bring to an end their concubinage, and the woman could not claim any damages for breach of promise to marry if the man decided to break their relationship as it did not serve as a token of a promise to marry.” The learning from the dictum of Osei Hwere J (as he then was) in the above case is that, the payment of akotoagyan to a woman’s family and cohabiting with her as a concubine does not amount to a marriage between the man and woman. The court said, “Where a man lives with a woman not as a real wife but only as a concubine with the consent of the woman’s parents, that association cannot be translated into a valid customary marriage because the man and woman are reputed to live as man and wife. Even though the defendant freely described the plaintiff as his wife and also described their association as ‘’marriage, this was no more than another euphemism for ‘concubine’ and ‘concubinage’ respectively.”

In Marrian Obeng Mintah v Francis Ampenyin[29] the Supreme Court[30] had an occasion to make a pronouncement on this matter. The facts of the case were that the parties were in a relationship which hit the rocks barely two years after it commenced. The appellant sued the respondent for inter alia breach of promise to marry and damages for inconvenience, loss of time wasted and payment of some specific amounts. The Supreme Court speaking through Akamba JSC said, “Significantly the appellant and the respondent lived in concubinage throughout the period in issue because the promised marriage, as found by the 1^st appellate court did not materialize…”

Who is a ‘Sidechick‘ and do they have any rights at law?

One’s status or capacity in any given situation defines the rights entitlements and obligations that are given to the person. In the case of Marian Obeng Mintah v Francis Ampenyin cited supra, their Lordships in making a determination pointed out that, it was imperative to determine the status of the party before deciding whether that person will be accorded some rights. Their Lordships commenced their analysis thus, “I commence my consideration of the above stated grounds in reverse order. My simple reason is that this ground of appeal that impugns the appellate court’s finding on the capacity in which the appellant was or lived in the premises would affect any consideration that would be made concerning whatever contribution she made hence it is preferable that the capacity be given the first option of treatment. In what capacity did the appellant make a ‘contribution’ and what was the purported contribution? What justifications did the appellate court have for concluding that she was a licensee? To begin with, the ground of appeal as it is presently couched admits of the relationship being one of concubinage. Yet by this same ground of appeal, it is sought to attack the 1st appellate court’s evaluation of the evidence on record and its application of the law to the facts…” It is important therefore to clarify one’s status because it is a person’s status that confers rights on the person in any given relationship or situation.

The subject of side chicks often come out and the question of whether they have an entitlement in the estate of a man or matrimonial rights remains debatable. Even who is a side chick at one point in time is not easy to identify. Side chick has been defined by google to mean, “a woman who has a secret, ongoing sexual or romantic relationship with a man who is already in a committed relationship, typically with a “main chick”. This implies that the man is being unfaithful and that the woman is a secondary partner. According to google, the side chick relationship is usually kept secret from the main girlfriend. The term is associated with infidelity and a breach of trust in a committed relationship. The Author suggests the male version of a side chick is a “side niggar” or “a side cock”.  In the Author’s view, A ‘side cock’ or ‘side niggar’ is therefore a man who is having an amorous relationship with a woman who is already married or is in a committed relationship, such a man is kept secret from the husband or main nigga, he hides and lurks in the shadow, he remains unseen. The concept of sidechickism is not peculiar to Ghana. According to the Oxford Advance Learners’ Dictionary, side chicks refer to “African American Vernacular English word used to describe a mistress or a woman who dates in addition to one’s girlfriend or wife”.

In their paper, ‘Conceptualizing Sidechickism as a Threat to Marital Security among Cisgender married women in Nigeria[31]’ Andrew, Stephen Ubong Ph.D, Dr. Jacob E. Odiong, Dr. Atu Emmanuel Eta and Andre, Aniekeme BNSC underscored the fact the sidechickism is gaining acceptability in society thus, “Sidechickism is one philosophy and practice that appears to be gaining wide acceptability among members of society despite the negative consequence it poses”. Per their research, sidechickism thrives in society due to factors including poverty among women, patriarchy, long-distance marriage, cultural belief, peer pressure and inadequate affection for one’s spouse. They opine that, “The word ‘side’ in African Vernacular on the other hand generally connotes alternative, additional, unofficial or minor. The word suggests that there is a “main stuff”…..”[32] In their view, Sidechickism is therefore a belief and practice where men maintain and service additional romantic relationships beside the formalized romantic relationship.[33] In the marriage setting and to the married women, “Sidechickism is the belief that married men maintain and service extra romantic relationships in addition to that which they do with their wives[34]”

A side chick typically therefore is not one who relocates to the house of the man and live with him as man and wife, performs all the duties of a wife. As it is said, she comes and goes, usually kept out of public sight or done in secrecy with the intention of hiding from the main chick or the spouse. One therefore cannot refer to a person living openly with a man as a ‘sidechick.’

Sidechickism is a phenomenon that ought not be encouraged because of the effect it has on the fidelity of married couples and family values. It has ruined marriages, caused broken homes etc. Sidechickism is considered as a form of gender-based violence against married women as it may negatively affect them in several ways.[35] According to the writers, Sidechickism more commonly practiced clandestinely even though some wives eventually have a way of discovering,[36] Some drivers of extra marital affairs and sidechickism include loss of affection for one’s wife and search for sexual fulfilment, long distance relationships, Barrenness/Male child preferences/search for male child, chaotic marital relationships etc… The negative effect of which have led people to behave unreasonably and led some to their early graves. In Nigeria, a woman in Calabar allegedly died in a road accident while chasing her husband who allegedly was with his side chick in his car.[37]

A side chick stricto senso, no matter the service rendered is not entitled to the benefits and rights as a spouse because she is not a spouse in the true sense of the word. No provision is made for such persons under the law. The Author notes however that, side chicks can be provided for by the man in the man’s last will and testament, since the law recognizes testamentary freedom, or by gifts inter vivos, beyond which the law offers no protection.  If she had children, then upon death of the husband, her children get to benefit from the estate of the man. If she does not have children, then she has no place in the entitlement of the man so long as she remained a sidechick. If however the person started as a side chick, she comes and goes, gradually[38] move her things and come and stay with the man and they both live as husband and wife in the eyes of the public. In that regard, such a person is no longer a side chick, but she has upgraded from the side chick status especially if the main madam has withdrawn her services to the neglect of the man, especially when the man is married under customary law. The Author suggests that, the probability of a sidechick to be construed as a spouse is higher in customary law marriages (polygamous) than Ordinance marriage (monogamous). In the Author’s view, the only cure to prevent a sidechick from gaining the rights of a spouse no matter how long she remains a side chick or even a concubine is for one to have an ordinance marriage which is valid in law and capable of proof.

How are marriages dissolved.

Just as marriages are formed through a procedure, it is dissolved by a recognized procedure. Customary law marriages are dissolved in accordance with the custom of the parties to the marriage. If that means is not used, marriage is not dissolved. If the custom of the parties dictates how the dissolution is made, one cannot adopt any other means to dissolve the marriage and any other means used will not be valid. If the custom of the parties for dissolving a marriage is the presentation and receipt of drinks, no other means used is acceptable.

In the case of Attah v Annan[39], the Court held that, “The note written by the defendant purporting thereby to dissolve the marriage is contrary to custom, void and absolutely incapable of terminating the marriage. This of course means, as I have already pointed out, that the marriage between the plaintiff and Adjoa Twumasi is still subsisting and the plaintiff can sue anyone who marries her or flirts with her.” In this case, the plaintiff was married under custom to one Adjoa Twumasi who was the grand-daughter of the defendant, whose first three years was happy. Although the parties to the marriage had a cordial relationship, the defendant sought to terminate the marriage, on the basis that the plaintiff was not a church goer and does not speak the truth. The defendant then wrote a letter to the plaintiff to purportedly dissolve the marriage. The court held that the letter that was written was unknown to custom and hence of no legal effect having regard to the dissolution of the marriage.

The dissolution of marriages under custom is community specific and it is the preserve of the respective families to do so. Some may include presentation of drinks, after attempts have been made to reconcile the parties, a formal rite done to separate the parties and families or any other such. In the case of Akosua Serwaah Fosu v Abusa Panin Kofi Owusu and 2 Others (Daddy Lumba case), the learned Dorinda Smith-Arthur espoused the law at paragraph 132 of her judgment thus, “the combined understanding of the reading “THE LAW OF FAMILY RELATIONS IN GHANA” in which learned author, W.C. Ekow Daniels at page 319 summarized J.B Danquah’s extra- judicial divorce procedure and William E. Offei’s book, Family Law in Ghana, Fourth Edition, Page 172 Writing under the topic, “Dissolution of Customary Marriages” together with evidence of PW2 is that, Dissolution of Akan Customary marriage cannot be done without the meeting of the family of both parties, There should be a complaint made by the aggrieved spouse, The parties are heard in accordance with the rules of natural justice and each party is given the opportunity of stating his or her case and to answer questions posed, After the hearing, a serious attempt is made to reconcile the parties. It is only where reconciliation fails that the woman is expected to return the head drink, Then properties are shared and or compensation is paid especially in cases of adultery, The head of family of the man will make a pronouncement that the marriage is dissolved by releasing the woman to her family, There are times the meeting will not end with a dissolution but the parties are given some time to reconcile but where especially the woman after various attempts thinks she still wants  the marriage to be terminated will return the head drink to the man and his family without another meeting being convened.” Every community or family has its way of dissolving marriages in accordance with customary law and practices, and anything in departure may be problematic.

In the same way, an ordinance marriage cannot be dissolved by presentation of customary drinks or even a letter as happened in the Attah v Annan case supra. Usually some are under the mistaken impression that before dissolving an ordinance marriage, you must dissolve the customary one first, that is also legally erroneous. Once the marriage under custom is converted into ordinance, it becomes an ordinance marriage with all the incidents of customary law falling away and giving way to the incidence of an ordinance marriage. So, the presentation of drinks in that regard is of no legal moment. This point was made by their Lordships in the case of Amoakohene v Amoakohene,[40] the court commented on this point thus, “It is interesting to note that in the Ghanaian context, a marriage commences with the performance of customary rites. Then that marriage can be converted into an Ordinance marriage under the Marriage Ordinance Cap 127 or under the Mohamedans Ordinance Cap 129 thus it becomes a single unit. Again in dealing within the Ghanaian context, a dissolution normally commences with the presentation of drinks etc in accordance with custom, thereby dissolving ‘the customary marriage’ before proceeding to file a petition for divorce to, as it were, ‘dissolve’ the Ordinance marriage. However, it seems to this Court that the correct state of the law should be that a dissolution of the Ordinance marriage should suffice, in other words since the converted marriage is now a composite unit, there is no need to dissolve the customary marriage as well. This position is however yet to be fully understood by the Ghanaian society”. An Ordinance marriage is dissolved in accordance with the Matrimonial Causes Act[41] by filing a petition to the Court. It takes only the court of competent jurisdiction to grant a dissolution of marriage under the Ordinance. The court does so after a presentation of a petition, answer and evidence taken to show that the marriage is broken down beyond reconciliation. To succeed that the marriage is broken down beyond reconciliation, the parties must be able to plead and prove six facts including, adultery- that the other spouse had committed adultery by reason of which the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the adulterer[42], the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other party (unreasonable behavior),[43]  that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the petition (desertion),[44] having not lived as husband and wife for a period of more than 2 years with consent,[45] having not lived together as husband and wife for more than five (5) years without consent,[46] inability to reconcile their differences.[47] Marriages under Ordinance cannot be dissolved by the family. It is only the law court that has the power to dissolve a marriage under ordinance.

Can a Customary Marriage be dissolved by the Court.

Although a customary marriage is dissolved under custom of the parties, the law allows the opportunity for a party married under customary law to apply to the Courts for the dissolution of their marriage. Although the Matrimonial Causes Act[48] applies to monogamous marriages, it also provides for other marriages. In this regard the Act provides that “On application by a party to a marriage other than a monogamous marriage, the court shall apply the provisions of this Act to that marriage, and in so doing, subject to the requirements of justice, equity and good conscience, the Court may – (a) have regard to the peculiar incidents of that marriage in determining appropriate relief, financial provision and child custody arrangements; (b) grant any form of relief recognized by the personal law of the parties to the proceedings, either in addition to or in substitution for the matrimonial reliefs afforded by this Act.”[49] The Matrimonial Causes Act can therefore be used to dissolve a marriage under custom. This is usually advisable because the court after dissolving the marriage is able to make other ancillary orders as to maintenance, custody or even property distribution.

Does long separation amount to dissolution

The law is that, when parties are married, no matter how long they separate or live apart, if no steps are taken to bring the marriage to an end, there is no divorce or dissolution and so they remain spouses. Unless and until practical steps are taken to bring the marriage to an end in accordance with law.

When parties marry whether under custom or under ordinance, the marriage must be dissolved in accordance with law.  If the correct process is not adopted, the dissolution fails and the marriage still subsists. For instance, a customary marriage cannot be dissolved by a letter written by the other spouse of his or her family to the other spouse, as seen in Attah v Annan cited supra. In the same way, an ordinance marriage cannot be dissolved by presentation of customary drinks. It is only the court that can dissolve the ordinance marriage in accordance with law.

In the case of Humphrey Bonsu v Quaynor[50] the parties as couples had lived separately for over eight years. In this case, in an action for provision under the Wills Act, the defendant contended that the plaintiff’s action that the plaintiff never married the deceased but only lived in concubinage hence he was not a wife and dependent under section 13 of the Wills Act[51]. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff was guilty of desertion and hence not so entitled. The Court of Appel, correctly stated the law thus, “however long the separation between a couple lats, it would not constitute a dissolution of the marriage when no steps were taken in that direction unless the couple clearly intended it to be so and did acts inconsistent with the marriage relationship, as for instance where the woman in particular remarried or went to live with another man elsewhere and the husband did not complain. ……..Further the first plaintiff cherished the believe that P, her husband would return to the marriage as he did in 1963 or thereabout after eight-year separation…… And in the circumstance the fact that the couple could not patch up their difference whilst they live apart did not mean the marriage was dissolved.”  This implies that, no matter how long parties separate, steps must be taken to bring the marriage to an end.

In Re Daddy Lumba

The Author has deliberately set out the relevant law above even before dealing with the full judgment to enable the review of the judgment to be in a proper perspective. Now to the Daddy Lumba jurisprudence.

The facts relevant to this paper are that the Plaintiff, Akosua Serwaah Fosuh (1^st wife of the deceased) issued a writ in the Kumasi High Court for reliefs inter alia that she is the only surviving spouse of the deceased Daddy Lumba and as such the only person to perform the widowhood rites of the deceased. Plaintiff further sought orders to restrain the head of family of the deceased from dealing with the 2^nd Defendant (Odo Broni) as a spouse of the deceased and further restraining Odo Broni from holding herself out as surviving spouse of Daddy Lumba. Akosua Serwaah, originally married under custom to Daddy Lumba in the 1990s, alleged that she was married to Daddy Lumba under German Civil marriage in 2004 a marriage which is monogamous and does not admit of any other woman. According to her, that marriage was never dissolved in the lifetime of Daddy Lumba.

The 1^st Defendant was the head of Family of Daddy Lumba and the 2^nd Defendant Odo Broni was the woman who was living with Daddy Lumba and nursed him till his death. The Defendants opposed the claims by Akosua Serwaah that they had a valid civil marriage in Germany. The Defendants contended that, the 2^nd Defendant Odo Broni was married to Daddy Lumba by custom and bore six children with him, and that she was the only person who took care of Daddy Lumba during his long illness until his death. It was Defendant’s contention that Daddy Lumba showcased Odo Broni as his wife publicly for more than fifteen years and as a married wife of Daddy Lumba she is entitled to be his surviving widow.

One key issue for determination which is still a subject of controversy was whether Akosua Serwaah is the only surviving spouse of Daddy Lumba. To succeed in this, she needed to prove that she was either married under customary law or ordinance and that marriage had not been dissolved. If she was married at custom, she would have to prove that Daddy Lumba had not dissolved that marriage, although Lumba may have married another woman since customary law marriages are polygamous or potentially so. If it is ordinance, she must prove that her ordinance marriage predated any other form of marriage Daddy Lumba may have contracted and that the ordinance marriage had not been dissolved in accordance with law. This is the burden a plaintiff who alleges must meet by way of evidence. After the trial the Honourable Court held that, the Plaintiff could not prove her German civil marriage by the acceptable means and hence she remained married at custom, and to the extent that customary law marriages admit multiple women as spouses, both Akosua Serwaah and Odo Broni were spouses at custom, similar to the position the Court took in the Gloria Aba Kingful v Vida Kafa Tayam case. Although there was a contention that the plaintiff had earlier returned drinks in an attempt to dissolve their customary marriage, the court rejected that on the basis that, that was not how customary marriages are dissolved.

Another issue that begged for answers which the court answered right was, “Can it be said that Odo Broni living with Daddy Lumba for 15 years and having six children with him constitute marriage.” The facts showed that, the Plaintiff was in Germany while the deceased was in Ghana to seek medical attention during his illness. While he was in Ghana, he was living with the 2^nd Defendant Odo Broni with whom he had been living for over 15 years. In the course of the 15 years, the 2^nd Defendant had bore for the deceased six children. She had been carried out by the deceased as his wife, the deceased had taken her to shows and meet dignitaries in the capacity as his wife, even acknowledged her as such at public functions including his 60^th birthday celebration among others. On the basis of these established facts and others, the Honourable Court held that Odo Broni was also a spouse at custom. Without prejudice to whether the Plaintiff was able to prove her ordinance marriage, the decision arrived at by the court is sound and in accordance with settled law and judicial precedent. The decision achieves substantial justice for both women having regard to the peculiar facts of this case. In the Author’s view, it would have been unjust to hold that Odo Broni was not a spouse if Akosua Serwaah had been able to prove her German marriage, especially having regard to the role she played in taking care of the deceased while the Plaintiff was in Germany and the deceased was in Ghana. In the end the declaration by the High Court is that, to the extent that Akosua Serwaah could not prove by acceptable means her German Civil marriage, she remains a wife under customary law and so does Odo Broni.

Commendations

It will be a sore omission on the part of the Author to end this piece without paying tribute to the learned Justice Dorinda Smith-Arthur, the presiding judge. When the judgment was rendered on 28^th November 2025, many took her to the cleaners for the decision she had given. These people had not read the decision and appreciated the reasoning behind the decision because it was indicated that the judgment would be out on 1^st December 2025. These comments were purely based on emotions, sentiments etc which have no or little place in the law. Anyone who passed a value judgment thereon passed same from the point of ignorance and without the benefit of reading the decision.

The Author, realizing the attacks, was compelled to make a post that people should hold on till they have had the benefit of reading the judgment before any value judgment is passed[52]. The attacks were so bad that one could not sit down unconcerned. Some even attacked her person and marital life, one such involved a high-profile man of God in Ghana, seeking to invoke curses on her that God will make her like Nebuchadnezzar[53] as if she had committed an offence, when all she did was to deliver her judgment based on the evidence before her and her appreciation of the law. At last, her judgment was released on 1^st December 2025. Solid judgment is an understatement.  The 74 paged judgment could pass for the reasoning of a supreme court judge. The judgment was thorough and addressed many areas of Family Law in Ghana. The judgment will join the locus classicus in the likes of Yaotey v Quaye, Essilfie v Quarcoo, Irene Gorleku v Justice Pobee among many other decisions and will be cited in law school and law courts for the principles the judge espoused. The Judge was legally sound, logically coherent, she evaluated the evidence with admiration, applied the laws correctly and achieved substantial justice. The Author takes the view that such a judge should be emulated and celebrated for the scholarship she exhibited. At least it is gratifying to note that the said man of God who attacked the judge has come out to render an apology for misspeaking[54], although the apology is commendable, the conduct in condemning the judgment was needless and avoidable.

The Author also commends the parties for taking this step and of course the deceased Daddy Lumba. He has showed that he did not just contribute to the music industry with songs, proverbial lyrics, thought provoking songs, but he has also contributed by his life to the Ghanaian Family Law Jurisprudence and to some extent relevant even in death. The case offers many legal lessons, gives fresh authorities to some of the old principles of family law known to lawyers and students of the law.

Conclusion

From the above, it is seen that the issue of marriage although both factual and legal can be complex. It may not be as simple as we see it when regard is had to the complexities that arise in the course of the marriage. Since knowledge is power and knowledge shared leads to empowerment, it is imperative that all persons, lawyers and non-lawyers alike are abreast of the subject of marriage and the law surrounding same.

---

[1] [1934] D. Ct [31-37] 69

[2] Charles Kwadwo Fosu

[3] Suit No. GJ12/20/2026

[4] [1961] GLR 720

[5] [ 1965] GLR 407

[6] Kingsley-Nyinah J (as he then was)

[7] [1962] 1 GLR 180 @ 182

[8] (2^nd ed., 1904), p. 49

[9] [1959] G.L.R. 353 C.A

[10] [1959] G.L.R. 353 C.A

[11] Family Law in Ghana, William Offei 3^rd Edition

[12] [1992] 2 G.L.R/ 180 HC

[13] Family Law in Ghana, 3^rd Ed p 27

[14] The Essentials of a Customary Marriage: A New Approach” in RGL Vol. xii 1980, pp 40-45

[15] [2012]

[16] Article 11(3) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana

[17] Family Law in Ghana, 3^rd Edition

[18] [1959] G.L.R 155

[19] [1963] 2 G.L.R 331

[20] Per Prempeh J (as he then was)

[21] [1975] 1 G.L.R 465

[22] Suit no C7/46/19 judgment dated 28^th May 2021

[23] 9^th edition

[24] [2012] 42 GMJ 53 AC

[25] A long time family law teacher and expert at the Ghana School of Law

[26] Frederica Ahwireng Obeng, At a Glance, Contemporary Principles of Family Law in Ghana p. 40, 41

[27] Akosua Serwaah Fosuh v Kofi Owusu and 2 Others

[28] [1975] 1 GLR 283

[29] [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1277

[30] coram

[31] Oniong: AJU Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, Volume 1, Issue 2-2024 published by Arthur Jarvis University Press

[32] supra

[33] supra

[34] supra

[35] supra

[36] supra

[37] Otang 2022

[38] Some start from coming and going, then they start leaving some of the items like shoes, dresses in the man’s house, they live intimate items in the house and then they finally move in to occupy and take possession.

 [39] [1975] I G.L.R 366 H.C

[40] [2019] 131 GMJ 135

[41] (1971) Act 367

[42] Section 2(1)(a) of the Matrimonial Causes Act

[43] Section 2(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act

[44] Section 2(1)(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act

[45] Section 2(1)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act

[46] Section 2(1)(e) of the Matrimonial Causes Act

[47] Section 2(1)(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367)

[48] Section 41 (1) of the Matrimonial Causses Act 1971 (Act 367)

[49] Section 41(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 (Act 367)

[50] [1999-2000] 2 GLR 781 CA

[51] [1971] Act 360

[52] https://www.facebook.com/share/p/163kfvGtDV/

[53] https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CpE24TutT/ 

[54] https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1CZxaDv8Y4/