Court Fines Man GH¢40k For Not Marrying Lover

A man who failed to honour his promise to marry his long-time partner has been ordered by the Court of Appeal in Kumasi to pay GH¢40,000 in damages for breach of promise to marry, though he was already legally married to another woman under the Ordinance at the time.

The court ruled that Benjamin Yeboah Anokye was liable for failing to fulfil his promise to marry Priscilla Atsu after the two were in a romantic relationship for several years and had a child together.

A three-member panel made up of Justices Eric Baah, Richard Mac Kogyapwah and Dr Poku Adusei delivered the judgment on July 23, 2026. The court upheld part of an earlier Kumasi High Court ruling delivered on December 22, 2020.

“Accordingly, the defendant is ordered to pay GH¢40,000 to the plaintiff as damages for breach of promise to marry,” the Court of Appeal held.

The judges also ruled that a person can be held responsible for breaking a promise to marry even if that person was already married under the Ordinance when the promise was made.

The court explained that an existing marriage cannot be used as a defence if there is evidence that the person made another believe that marriage would take place.

According to thelawplatform.online, Anokye and Atsu were in a relationship from 2011 to 2017. Their relationship resulted in the birth of a son in 2016. During that period, Anokye accepted responsibility for the child, relocated Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi and provided accommodation for her and their son at a house in South Suntreso.

Atsu later sued Anokye, claiming he had promised to marry her and had also given the South Suntreso house to her as a gift after she performed the customary thanksgiving ceremony known as “aseda.” She asked the court to declare her the owner of the house and award her damages for breach of promise.

Anokye denied both claims, insisting that he had never promised to marry her and that he could not have done so because he was already married under the Ordinance.

However, the Court of Appeal found that his actions supported Atsu’s claims. The court noted that he introduced her to his uncle as his “fiancée,” relocated her to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child and allowed her to live in the disputed house.

Although the court upheld the GH¢40,000 damages award, it rejected Atsu’s claim that the house had been gifted to her because she failed to provide enough evidence to prove ownership.

The court, however, ordered Anokye to refund GH¢25,000 that Atsu spent on completing the house, together with interest. It also criticised the police for allegedly seizing receipts relating to her expenditure, describing their actions as “arbitrary and condemnable.”

The judges further stated that the ruling does not affect Anokye’s legal responsibility to continue caring for and maintaining their child under the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560).