Supreme Court · CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/31/2020 · 14th April 2021 · Ghana
Facts:
The plaintiff, Ama Serwaa, and the second defendant, Issaka Hashimu, were migrant workers from Ghana who met and cohabited as a couple in Italy. The plaintiff believed they were in an amorous relationship and that marriage was imminent. She alleged that the defendant advised her to move to Napoli for a more lucrative job, which turned out to be commercial sex work, and that she turned over her earnings to him with the understanding that they would eventually marry and set up a home in Ghana. Although no formal marriage took place between them, the plaintiff stated that in Italy she and the second Defendant lived as man and wife in the eyes of the world.
On their return to Ghana, the relationship deteriorated, and the second defendant eventually married someone else. The plaintiff subsequently sued for, among other things, general damages for breach of promise to marry by the 2nd Defendant.
Holding:
The Supreme Court, implicitly acknowledged the viability of the plaintiff’s claim for breach of promise to marry. In so doing, the court considered whether a promise to marry was made and relied upon by the plaintiff to her detriment. Referencing established Ghanaian legal principles, the court reiterated that actions for breach of promise to marry under customary laws are maintainable citing Professor W. C. Ekow Daniels and the case of Donkor v Ankrah. The court highlighted that society benefits from holding people to their promises of marriage, while also acknowledging the need to prevent blackmail and protect against exploitation.
Implications of the Decision:
This case reinforces the principle that a promise to marry, even in the absence of formal customary rites, can give rise to a cause of action for breach of promise. The Supreme Court’s focus on the plaintiff’s reasonable expectation of marriage, induced by the defendant’s words and conduct, and her subsequent actions taken in reliance on that promise, underscores the importance of assessing the substance of the relationship. The decision suggests that courts will look beyond mere formal declarations to determine whether a binding promise to marry existed.
Furthermore, the court’s reliance on equitable principles like constructive trust to address property disputes in conjunction with the breach of promise claim highlights how a broken promise to marry can have significant legal and financial ramifications. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by the court to prevent unjust enrichment, where one party holds property under circumstances that make it unfair for them to retain sole ownership. By applying this principle, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s financial contributions, made in anticipation of marriage, created an interest in the assets accumulated during the relationship. This underscores the courts’ willingness to ensure that individuals are not left at a disadvantage when they invest in a shared future based on a reasonable belief in marriage.
Significant Quote:
“On the whole it is better for society to hold people to promises made – even of marriage – and to declare the parameters within which one may change one’s mind without causing hardship to another.” – PROF MENSA-BONSU (MRS.), JSC
Commentary/Insight:
The Ama Serwaa v Gariba Hashimu case illustrates the complex legal issues that can arise from intimate relationships, particularly when they transcend national borders and cultural norms. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the breach of promise to marry claim highlights its willingness to apply established legal principles to evolving social realities. The defendant’s shifting accounts and attempts to deny the nature and duration of their relationship likely undermined his credibility and supported the plaintiff’s assertion that a promise of marriage had been made. The case also underscores that a party who leads another to reasonably believe in the prospect of marriage and induces them to act to their detriment may be held liable for a breach of that promise, even if formal marital rites were never completed. A key factor in the court’s assessment was the plaintiff’s investment of her earnings in reliance on the defendant’s promise of marriage.
