A person who promises to marry someone can still be held legally responsible for breaking that promise, even if they were already married under the Ordinance when the promise was made, the Court of Appeal in Kumasi has ruled.

The decision was delivered in the case of Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33], where the court reaffirmed that a claim for breach of promise to marry remains valid under Ghanaian common law if the required legal elements are established.

The three-member panel, made up of Justices Baah, Kogyapwah and Dr Adusei, also ruled that being in a romantic relationship or spending money to improve a partner’s property does not automatically give someone ownership rights over that property.

READ ALSO: Explained: US court extends time in Abu Trica’s alleged romance scam case – what it means and what could happen next

The dispute arose from a relationship between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu, which lasted from 2011 to 2017 and resulted in the birth of a son.

During their relationship, Benjamin moved Priscilla from Tamale to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child and provided accommodation for both mother and child in a house at South Suntreso in Kumasi.

Priscilla later told the court that Benjamin had given her the house as a gift after she performed a customary thanksgiving ceremony known as “aseda” to acknowledge the gift. She also claimed that he had promised to marry her but failed to fulfil that promise.

She therefore asked the court to declare her the rightful owner of the house and award her damages for breach of promise to marry.

READ ALSO: Power cuts to hit parts of Accra, Ashanti, Volta and Eastern Region from August 3: See 7 day schedule

Benjamin denied both claims. He maintained that he had never gifted the property to Priscilla and insisted he had not promised to marry her. He also argued that because he was already married under the Ordinance, he could not be held liable for breaching a promise to marry.

The Court of Appeal rejected that argument, ruling that an existing marriage does not automatically shield a person from liability if their conduct led another person to reasonably believe that a marriage would take place.

According to the court, Benjamin’s actions including introducing Priscilla as his fiancée, relocating her to Kumasi and taking responsibility for their child, supported the finding that he had indeed made a genuine promise of marriage.

The court therefore upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages for breach of promise to marry.

However, it dismissed Priscilla’s claim to ownership of the South Suntreso property, finding that she failed to provide sufficient evidence that the house had been legally gifted to her.

READ ALSO: 12-year-old boy, truck driver arrested over viral video showing minor driving articulated truck

The judges explained that for a gift to be legally valid, there must be clear evidence that the donor intended to transfer ownership, that the recipient accepted the gift and that ownership was actually transferred. The court also found inconsistencies in the evidence presented about the alleged “aseda” ceremony.

It further ruled that the legal doctrine of advancement, which may create a presumption of a gift between spouses, does not apply to couples who are not legally married.

Although Priscilla was unsuccessful in claiming ownership of the house, the court awarded her GH¢25,000 to reimburse her for money she spent improving the property.

The judges also criticised the police for becoming involved in the property dispute, stressing that such civil matters should be resolved through the courts rather than through police intervention.

In its final orders, the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier decision that allowed Benjamin to remain in the house indefinitely. Instead, it ordered that she be given three months to find alternative accommodation.

The court further directed that Benjamin could only recover possession of the property after paying the GH¢40,000 awarded for breach of promise to marry and the GH¢25,000 reimbursement for improvements made to the house.

The ruling does not affect Benjamin’s legal obligation to continue providing care and maintenance for their son in accordance with Ghana’s Children’s Act.