Pay ‘side-chick’ GH¢40k as damages – Court of Appeal affirms High Court decision against man

The Court of Appeal has upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages against a man who failed to honour a promise to marry a woman with whom he had maintained a romantic relationship and fathered a child.

A three-member panel held that Benjamin Yeboah Anokye’s conduct provided sufficient evidence that he had promised to marry Priscilla Atsu, despite his denial and his claim that he was already married under the ordinance.

The court consequently affirmed the relevant part of a Kumasi High Court judgment delivered on December 22, 2020, which found Mr Anokye liable for breach of promise to marry.

The panel, comprising Justices Eric Baah, Richard Mac Kogyapwah and Dr Poku Adusei, delivered its decision on July 23, 2026.

Writing the judgment, Justice Dr Poku Adusei said the High Court was justified in awarding the money, although it had wrongly described the amount as a “lump sum” rather than damages.

“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.

Relationship produced a child

The parties were in an amorous relationship between 2011 and 2017, which resulted in the birth of a child in 2016. Mr Anokye accepted paternity and participated in the child’s naming ceremony.

He also provided accommodation for Ms Atsu and their son at House Number F.22, South Suntreso, Kumasi.

Ms Atsu subsequently sued him, claiming that he had promised to marry her and had also gifted the South Suntreso property to her. She sought damages for breach of promise to marry, a declaration of ownership of the house and a perpetual injunction preventing Mr Anokye from interfering with her occupation of the property.

Mr Anokye denied both claims. He argued that he had merely accepted responsibility for impregnating Ms Atsu and performed the necessary customary rites. He further maintained that she knew he was married under the ordinance and that he could not have promised to marry her while that marriage subsisted.

However, the Court of Appeal found that his actions during the relationship supported Ms Atsu’s account.

Evidence from Mr Anokye’s uncle showed that he introduced Ms Atsu to him as his “fiancée” in 2015. The court considered the use of that word—meaning a bride-to-be—as significant corroboration of her claim.

The court also took into account Mr Anokye’s decision to relocate Ms Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, rent accommodation for her, involve his uncle in persuading her to keep the pregnancy, accept responsibility before her family and allow her and their son to occupy the disputed house.

According to the court, these acts supported the High Court’s finding that a promise to marry had been made but was not fulfilled.

Existing marriage no defence

The Court of Appeal affirmed that Ghanaian common law recognises an action for breach of promise to marry.

To succeed, a claimant must prove that a promise to marry was made, expressly or through conduct; that the promise was accepted and acted upon to the claimant’s detriment; and that the other party refused or failed to fulfil it without lawful justification.

The court said Mr Anokye’s assertion that he was already married under the ordinance did not shield him from liability, particularly when the claimed marriage had not been supported by credible evidence.

It observed that people sometimes conceal their marital status when making promises to potential partners and could not subsequently rely on that concealed status to escape the legal consequences of their conduct.

Damages in such cases may compensate the affected person for injured feelings, social disgrace, loss of the economic benefits the proposed marriage could have provided and reduced prospects of marrying another person.

Additional GH¢25,000 refund

Although the court upheld the GH¢40,000 damages award, it rejected Ms Atsu’s claim that the South Suntreso house had been gifted to her.

It found that she failed to prove the requirements of a valid lifetime gift, including evidence of a clear intention to transfer ownership, sufficient publicity and acceptance through the customary presentation of “aseda” or another recognised form of appreciation.

The court held that the parties were in a concubinage relationship rather than a marriage and that the legal presumption that property purchased in the name of one spouse may have been intended as a gift did not apply.

However, the court found evidence that Ms Atsu had spent money completing the house with Mr Anokye’s knowledge. It consequently ordered him to refund GH¢25,000 to her, together with interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate from January 2017 until final payment.

The Court of Appeal also criticised the police for allegedly seizing receipts relating to Ms Atsu’s expenditure on the house, describing the intervention in the civil property dispute as “arbitrary and condemnable.”

Mr Anokye may recover possession of the house after paying the amounts ordered by the court. Ms Atsu must then be given three months to secure alternative accommodation.

The court nevertheless stated that its orders did not affect Mr Anokye’s continuing statutory responsibility to maintain and care for the parties’ child under the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560).