HIGH COURT, ACCRA
DATE: 17TH MAY, 1962
BEFORE: OLLENNU J.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
ACTION for maintenance.
COUNSEL
E. K N. Olaga for E. N. P. Sowah for the plaintiffs.
No appearance by or for the defendant.
JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.
The second plaintiff who claims to be a wife of the defendant by marriage under customary law, has sued jointly with her father, the first plaintiff, claiming maintenance for herself.
By customary law, a man is liable to maintain and house his wife according to his station in life. This principle of the customary law has not been disputed in this case.
The defendant admitted in his statement of defence that he was married to the second plaintiff by customary law as pleaded by the plaintiffs. He pleaded, however, that the said marriage has been dissolved, and therefore his liability to maintain the second plaintiff has ceased. Upon that defence, the first issue to be determined is whether or not the marriage between the second plaintiff and the defendant has been dissolved.
[p.362] of [1962] 1 GLR 361
The case came before the court on the 30th April; 1962, on a summons for directions and for a date tobe fixed for trial. There was no appearance for the defendant on that day. The case was fixed for trial on the 15th May, 1962, and the court ordered a hearing notice to be served on the solicitors for the defendant. A hearing notice was accordingly issued, but Mr. Agadzi who has been appearing on behalf of the defendant refused to accept service, but having been warned previously that since he has not obtained leave of the court to withdraw from the case the court would regard the tender of the notice to him by the bailiff as due service upon him, Mr. Agadzi attended court on the 15th May, 1962; the case was adjourned to the next day, the 16th May, 1962. When the case was called on the 16th May, 1962, Mr. Agadzi asked leave of the court to withdraw from the case on the grounds that he had a telephone conversation the other day with his client who is now in Nigeria, and that his said client instructed him to withdraw from the case. He therefore asked leave of the court to withdraw from the case. The leave sought was granted, and Mr. Agadzi withdrew, but the case proceeded.
Upon the evidence before the court and the admissions made by the defendant in his statement of defence, I find the following facts proved: The defendant and his wife, the second plaintiff lived together in a house at Christiansborg belonging to the defendant’s father. During the year 1960 the second plaintiff was sent to Lome on two different occasions by the defendant; on the first occasion to complete negotiations the defendant had started for the purchase of a piece of land and to pay for the same; on the second occasion to have a fence erected round the said land. In or about December, 1960 the defendant requested the second plaintiff to go back to Lome and live there to supervise the erection of a building upon the land. The second plaintiff, however refused to go because upon her return from Lome the last time, not having previously notified the defendant that she was coming, she had found some clothes and other personal effects of some woman in their room, and had some information from her children, and had suspected that the defendant wanted her out of the way in order that he should associate with other women, and that was why he requested her to go and live in Lome. Upon the second plaintiff’s refusal to go to Lome, the defendant left the home on the 18th December, 1960, and went and lived at the Ambassador Hotel with a certain woman for some time.
From the Ambassador Hotel he and the said woman went and stayed together in a certain rest house for some weeks. He returned to the house on the 18th May, 1961.
On that day, the defendant came to the house with a truck and had all the personal effects of the second plaintiff packed on it. He told her that he had purchased a house for her at Kaneshie with the money with which he was going to put up the building at Lome, and that she should go and live in that house . . . The second plaintiff reported the incident to the father of the defendant and upon the advice of the defendant’s father, she got on the vehicle and was taken to a house in Kaneshie where she now lives.
[p.363] of [1962] 1 GLR 361
The defendant has failed to maintain the second plaintiff since October, 1961, and the burden of maintaining the second plaintiff has since been carried by the first plaintiff, the father of the second plaintiff.
In March, 1962, the second plaintiff was served with notice to quit the house at Kaneshie on the grounds that the defendant did not buy the house as he had alleged, but took it on a tenancy and paid the rents up to February, 1962 and no more. The second plaintiff therefore began to pay the rents and acquired the tenancy of the premises in order that she should not be ejected.
I accept the evidence of the second plaintiff that her marriage with the defendant has not been dissolved and that the said marriage still subsists between her and the defendant. I also accept her evidence that the defendant has failed to maintain her since October, 1961, and it is the first plaintiff her father who has been maintaining her. The three issues of the marriage are all in boarding schools at the expense of the defendant. I am satisfied that the defendant spends an average of £G25 a term on each of them, a total of £G75 per term.
The defendant is by customary law liable to maintain his wife, the second plaintiff. As earlier observed, the maintenance to which a wife by customary law is entitled is according to the station in life of the husband.
Now the facts in regard to the defendant’s standard in life are: he is a member of the legal profession, and is now the Ghana High Commissioner to the Federation of Nigeria. He himself arranged the tenancy of the house where the second plaintiff now lives as the reasonable minimum accommodation worthy of a wife of his social standing.
The defendant admits that he has stopped paying the rents; that being the case, the court, in fixing the amount of maintenance for the second plaintiff must take the rent element into consideration. Having regard to the fact that the rent alone is £G25 a month, and considering the present salary the defendant receives exclusive of allowances, the needs of the second plaintiff and the house she has to maintain, it seems to me that the claim of £G50 a month is most reasonable.
By customary law the first plaintiff as the father and the person now responsible for the second plaintiff is entitled to sue jointly with the second plaintiff for the maintenance of the second plaintiff. There will be judgment for the plaintiffs against the defendant for an order that the defendant should pay to the second plaintiff monthly for her maintenance, the sum of £G25 for the period October, 1961 to February, 1962, and £G50 monthly from March, 1962. The plaintiffs will have their costs fixed at 75 guineas.
DECISION
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
