By Grace Zigah
The Court of Appeal in Kumasi has delivered a landmark ruling reaffirming that a person who promises marriage and later unjustifiably reneges on that promise can be held liable under Ghanaian common law, even where that person is already married under the Ordinance.
In a judgment in the case Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu (TLP-CA-2026-33), the appellate court upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages against a married man for breaching his promise to marry his partner, while at the same time dismissing the woman’s claim to ownership of a house she said had been gifted to her.
The decision settles two important legal questions relating to promises of marriage and property rights arising from unmarried relationships, while also clarifying that merely living together or contributing to the development of a partner’s property does not automatically confer ownership.
Relationship That Ended in Court
The dispute arose from a romantic relationship between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu, which lasted from 2011 to 2017 and resulted in the birth of a son.
During the relationship, the man relocated Ms. Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child, organised the child’s naming ceremony and provided accommodation for both mother and child in his house at South Suntreso in Kumasi.
Atsu subsequently claimed that the house had been presented to her as a gift after she performed the customary “aseda” thanksgiving ceremony. She further maintained that Anokye had promised to marry her but later failed to fulfil that promise.
She therefore asked the court to declare her the owner of the property, restrain the man from interfering with her occupation of the house and award her damages for breach of promise to marry.
Man Denies Promise, Cites Existing Marriage
Anokye rejected the claims, insisting that he neither gifted the property to Ms. Atsu nor promised to marry her.
He also argued that he was already married under the Ordinance and therefore could not legally enter into another valid marriage, contending that this prevented any enforceable promise to marry.
High Court Awards Damages
The High Court rejected Ms. Atsu’s ownership claim over the South Suntreso house but ruled that she and the child could continue occupying the property until she either got married or had another child with a different man.
The court also awarded her GH¢40,000 as a lump-sum payment for breach of promise to marry, prompting Anokye to challenge the decision at the Court of Appeal.
Court Of Appeal Upholds Marriage Promise Claim
After reviewing the evidence, the Court of Appeal affirmed that breach of promise to marry remains actionable under Ghanaian common law where the necessary legal requirements are satisfied.
According to the court, a claimant must establish that a genuine promise to marry was made, that the promise was accepted and relied upon to the person’s detriment, and that the promisor later refused or failed to honour the promise without lawful justification.
The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion.
Among the factors considered were evidence that Anokye introduced Ms. Atsu to his uncle as his fiancée, persuaded her to keep their pregnancy, relocated her to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child and provided accommodation for both mother and child.
The judges concluded that these actions were consistent with a genuine promise to marry.
The court also rejected Anokye’s reliance on his existing Ordinance marriage as a defence, holding that a person cannot deliberately induce another into believing marriage would follow and later escape legal responsibility by citing an existing marriage.
The judges therefore upheld the GH¢40,000 award, clarifying that it represented damages for breach of promise to marry rather than matrimonial property settlement.
Property Claim Fails
Although successful on the breach of promise issue, Ms. Atsu failed in her attempt to secure ownership of the South Suntreso house.
The Court of Appeal held that under Ghanaian law, a valid lifetime gift requires clear evidence of the donor’s intention, publicity surrounding the transfer and acceptance by the recipient, often demonstrated through the customary aseda ceremony.
The judges found inconsistencies in the evidence regarding whether the alleged customary acceptance had actually taken place.
Consequently, the court ruled that ownership of the property had never legally passed to Ms. Atsu.
Court Rejects Ownership Through Cohabitation
The Court further clarified that the legal doctrine of advancement—which may presume that property acquired by one spouse for another was intended as a gift—applies only within marriage.
Since the parties were never legally married, the respondent could not rely on that legal principle to claim ownership of the property simply because they had lived together.
Compensation For Money Spent on House
Despite dismissing the ownership claim, the Court recognised that Ms. Atsu had invested substantial sums in completing and improving the property with the knowledge of Anokye.
Evidence before the court showed that she spent more than GH¢25,000, although some receipts were reportedly seized by police during the dispute.
The Court criticised the police for involving themselves in what it described as a civil property dispute outside their mandate.
In the interest of fairness, the judges ordered Anokye to refund GH¢25,000 together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until full payment.
Final Orders
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order allowing Ms. Atsu to remain indefinitely in the South Suntreso house and lifted the injunction restraining Anokye from recovering possession of the property.
However, the court directed that possession of the house could only be recovered after Anokye had paid the GH¢40,000 damages for breach of promise to marry and reimbursed the GH¢25,000 spent on improving the property.
The respondent was also granted three months to secure alternative accommodation.
The court further emphasised that its decision does not affect Anokye’s continuing legal obligation under the Children’s Act to provide maintenance, care and support for the child born during the relationship.
