The Court of Appeal has delivered judgment clarifying Ghanaian law on breach of promise to marry, gifts made during intimate relationships, and the property rights of unmarried couples following the breakdown of their relationship.
In Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu(Civil Appeal No: H1/111/23), the Court partly allowed an appeal against a High Court judgment that had awarded damages for breach of promise to marry while also permitting the respondent to remain indefinitely in a house owned by the appellant.
Background
The parties were in a romantic relationship between 2011 and 2017, during which they had a son. The appellant accepted responsibility for the child, provided accommodation for the respondent and their son, and later allowed them to occupy a house at South Suntreso in Kumasi. The respondent subsequently commenced proceedings claiming that the house had been gifted to her and that the appellant had breached a promise to marry her.
The High Court rejected her claim that ownership of the house had been transferred to her but nonetheless ordered that she could continue occupying the property until she married or had a child with another man. The trial court also awarded her GH¢40,000, described as a lump sum, for breach of promise to marry together with GH¢10,000 in costs.
Dissatisfied with those orders, the appellant challenged the decision before the Court of Appeal.
Promise to Marry Remains Enforceable
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Dr. Poku Adusei reaffirmed that an action for breach of promise to marry remains part of Ghana’s common law.
The Court explained that a claimant must establish three essential elements: that there was a promise to marry, that the promise was accepted and acted upon to the claimant’s detriment, and that the promisor unjustifiably failed or refused to fulfil that promise. The Court further noted that such a promise may be express or inferred from the conduct of the parties.
Applying those principles, the Court found ample evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that the appellant had indeed promised to marry the respondent. Particularly significant was testimony from the appellant’s own uncle, who confirmed that the appellant had introduced the respondent to him as his fiancée. The Court also considered the appellant’s conduct in relocating the respondent, providing accommodation, accepting responsibility for their child and allowing them to occupy the disputed house.
The Court therefore upheld the award of GH¢40,000, observing that although the trial judge described it as a lump sum, it was properly characterised as damages for breach of promise to marry.
No Gift of the House Was Established
The Court rejected the respondent’s contention that the property had been gifted to her.
Reaffirming established principles governing gifts inter vivos (between the living), the Court held that a valid gift requires clear intention by the donor, sufficient publicity surrounding the gift, and acceptance by the donee, typically evidenced through the customary giving of aseda or another recognised form of acceptance.
Although the respondent pleaded that aseda had been performed, her evidence at trial was inconsistent with her pleadings, and she failed to produce credible evidence demonstrating that the customary requirements for a valid gift had been satisfied.
The Court therefore agreed with the High Court that ownership of the house had never passed to the respondent.
The Court also held that the doctrine of advancement, which may create a presumption that property acquired by a husband in the name of his wife is intended as a gift, does not extend to parties merely in a concubinage or cohabitation relationship.
Occupation Order Set Aside
Having concluded that the respondent had failed to establish ownership of the property, the Court found that the trial judge had erred by simultaneously granting her what effectively amounted to a life interest in a house adjudged to belong to the appellant.
The appellate court described those consequential orders as inconsistent with the dismissal of the respondent’s ownership claim and set aside both the order allowing her continued occupation of the house and the injunction restraining the appellant from recovering possession.
Compensation for Improvements to the Property
While rejecting the respondent’s claim to ownership, the Court found that justice required reimbursement for money she had expended in completing the house.
The evidence showed that she had incurred expenses towards completing the property with the appellant’s knowledge. The Court criticised the conduct of the police in seizing receipts relating to those expenditures, describing that intervention as arbitrary and beyond the proper role of the Ghana Police Service in resolving civil property disputes.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the appellant to refund GH¢25,000 together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until full payment.
Final Orders
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part by:
- dismissing the respondent’s claim that the house had been gifted to her;
- affirming an award of GH¢40,000 as damages for breach of promise to marry;
- ordering repayment of GH¢25,000 with interest for improvements made to the property;
- directing that the appellant may recover possession of the house after satisfying those monetary obligations, while granting the respondent three months to secure alternative accommodation; and
- preserving the appellant’s continuing statutory obligations towards the child under the Children’s Act.
The decision is an important restatement of several principles of Ghanaian private law. It confirms that actions for breach of promise to marry remain legally enforceable where the requisite elements are established. At the same time, the Court drew a clear distinction between emotional or relational expectations and proprietary rights, emphasising that cohabitation alone does not create ownership interests in property or attract the presumption of advancement.
Equally important is the Court’s recognition that, although a partner may fail to establish ownership of property, equitable compensation may still be available for proven financial contributions made towards improving that property. The judgment therefore provides valuable guidance on the legal consequences that may arise when intimate relationships break down, particularly where promises, property and financial contributions become intertwined.
