Division: IN THE HIGH COURT, HO
Date: 22ND SEPTEMBER, 1959.
Before: SIMPSON J.
JUDGMENT OF SIMPSON J.
(His lordship referred to the history of the case, and continued:-
The District Magistrate decided to call evidence as to the customary law involved. The witness, unfortunately, was not asked what customs are required to be performed where the man and woman had already been living together, as they had been in this case. The plaintiff stated that he was given no opportunity to put any question to the witness, and the record appears to bear that out. The District Magistrate was not justified, therefore, in rejecting the District Court’s exposition of the customary law involved.
In his judgement the District Magistrate said, “There is nothing in the evidence to prove that plaintiff was in fact married to the defendant.” From an examination of the evidence of the witness called by the Magistrate, and the explanation of the District Court, I take the view that basically the only requisites to a marriage are the consent of the girl’s parents, and of the girl herself. I am fortified in this view by the judgment of Deane C.J. in the case of Quaye and Kwevi (Div. Cts. (1931)-(1937)), although that case deals primarily with Ga customary law.
In the present case there is undoubtedly evidence on which, if believed, the District Court could reasonable find that the parties were married. There is evidence that the parties had been living together for some years, and that there was an agreement to marry. The defendant admitted that she forced the plaintiff to send head-wine to her parents. There is evidence that drinks, and £11s. 0d. in cash, were offered to a paternal uncle of the defendant, and were accepted by him in the presence of a number of people, including the defendant’s mother and (according to one witness ) her father also. The plaintiff gave evidence of collecting adultery fee from a person whom he does not name but who, from his cross-examination of the defendant, appears to be called Da Kofi.
[p.307] of [1959] GLR 305
The District Court expressed itself as “satisfied with plaintiff and his witness case.” The District Magistrate’s finding that there is nothing in the evidence to prove that the plaintiff was in fact married to the defendant is in my opinion untenable.
DECISION
I allow the appeal. The judgment of the Magistrate is set aside, and the judgement of the District Court is restored. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court and in the Magistrate’s Court, to be taxed.
