Court orders man to pay 'side-chick' Ghc40,000 over breach of marriage promise

The Court of Appeal sitting in Kumasi, constituted by Justices Baah, Kogyapwah, Dr. Adusei, JJA, has upheld a High Court ruling ordering a married man, Benjamin Yeboah Anokye, to pay GH¢40,000 in damages to his former lover, Priscilla Atsu, for breach of promise to marry, even though he was already in a subsisting ordinance marriage throughout their relationship.

Background to the Dispute

Anokye and Atsu were in a relationship spanning 2011 to 2017, during which Atsu bore his child. The dispute before the courts centred on a property at South Suntreso and on Atsu’s claim that Anokye had promised to marry her.

The High Court rejected Atsu’s claim to ownership of the property but awarded her GH¢40,000 in damages and permitted her to remain in the house until she married another person or had a child with someone else. Anokye, dissatisfied with the decision, appealed.

Existing Marriage No Defence, Court Rules

On appeal, Anokye argued that because he was already bound by an ordinance marriage, he could not, in law, have made a valid promise to marry Atsu. The Court of Appeal rejected this defence outright, holding that a subsisting marriage does not protect a person who deliberately induces another into believing a marriage will take place.

The appellate court upheld the GH¢40,000 damages award but clarified its legal character, the sum was compensation for breach of promise to marry, not a matrimonial lump-sum settlement. The bench further ordered Anokye to refund Atsu GH¢25,000 she had spent improving his South Suntreso property.

Three-Part Test for Breach of Promise

In its judgment, the court set out the elements a claimant must establish to succeed in a breach of promise to marry claim in Ghana:

That a promise to marry existed

That the promise was accepted and acted upon to the claimant’s detriment

That the promisor failed to honour the promise without lawful justification

Evidence Against Anokye

The court found ample evidence that Anokye’s conduct was consistent with a genuine intention to marry Atsu. He had introduced her to his uncle as his fiancée, persuaded her to continue with the pregnancy, relocated her, and accepted parental responsibility for their child. These acts, the court held, went beyond casual assurances and amounted to a real promise on which Atsu had reasonably relied.