- A Circuit court in Techiman has asked a policewoman to pay a man GH¢10,000 for failing to go by a marriage promise they made
- The man said he financed and facilitated her training as a police officer at the Police Training School, among other things
- The court also made the police officer return some of the items the man bought in preparation for their traditional marriage
The Circuit Court in Techiman, in the Bono East Region, has ordered a policewoman to pay her concubine GH¢10,000 for breaching her promise to marry him.
Mary Anwti is the police officer, and her concubine, whom she did not settle down with as promised, is William Baffour Gyan.
The man stated while filing the suit that he was in a love relationship with Mary Antwi and supported her in every way possible, including financially.
William Baffour Gyan indicated 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 added that Mary Antwi’s mother gifted him a piece of land in appreciation of his support and commitment towards their family.
William therefore put up a house on the gifted land, which he intended to serve as their matrimonial home after they tied the knot.
In his writ, William said that when he decided to formalise the relationship in 2019, Mary did not agree. He said this was not the promise they had made to each other and proceeded to court to seek redress.
The court’s findings and ruling
The plaintiff 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 building he put up on land gifted to him with digital address TO-0520-7818 and to order the defendant to return certain items he had purchased for the performance of the traditional marriage.
The court presided over by His Honour Samuel Djane Kotey found enough evidence to show that the two had promised to marry, and Mary Antwi’s refusal to fulfil her part of the agreement was a breach.
The court also 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 GH¢30,000 in respect of those items was dismissed.
The court ruled that William owned the building he put up on the gifted land, but not the land, since it was given to both of them in anticipation of their future marriage.
However, the court did not award William the requested GH¢20,000, which he claimed he spent on building on the gifted land.