Case of the Week: Gyan Alias Amoah and another v. Dabrah

High Court · 2 GLR 318-326 · Ghana

Introduction:

This appeal before the High Court raised crucial questions regarding the evolution and application of customary law in modern Ghanaian society. Specifically, it examined the extent of a father’s responsibility for an adult son’s immoral conduct and what truly constitutes actionable seduction under customary law,

  NB:Under Ghanaian customary law, seduction generally refers to sexual and immoral activity between a  married woman and another man, and in some ethnic groups, even the touching of any whether married or unmarried woman’s waist beads may amount to seduction

Facts:

The plaintiff-respondent, Mr. Dabrah, initiated an action in the District Court Grade II, Assin Manso, seeking ¢200 in damages for seduction. His claim was brought against the first defendant-appellant, Gyan alias Amoah, and the second defendant-appellant, Gyan’s father. Mr. Dabrah alleged that Gyan alias Amoah had seduced his daughter, Miss Elizabeth Dabrah, an apprentice seamstress, resulting in her pregnancy. Although Gyan alias Amoah admitted to having sexual intercourse with Miss Elizabeth Dabrah, he denied responsibility for her pregnancy, suggesting another individual named Nkrumah was the father.

The second defendant, Gyan’s father, was sued because he allegedly refused to perform customary rites after several demands, making him “responsible for matters affecting the first defendant”. Evidence presented during the trial indicated that Gyan alias Amoah was a pupil teacher living independently in another village and was in control of his own affairs at the time of the alleged seduction.

The trial magistrate ultimately found Gyan alias Amoah responsible for Miss Dabrah’s pregnancy and confirmed that the second defendant was indeed his father. Judgment was entered jointly and severally against both defendants for ¢100 in damages for “damaging the plaintiff’s daughter’s career”.

The defendants appealed this decision, primarily on two grounds:

1. The action against Gyan’s father was frivolous, arguing there was no recognized customary law rule holding a father responsible for a seduction committed by his adult son.
2. The trial court’s findings were against the weight of evidence, particularly concerning the unchallenged testimony that someone else was responsible for the pregnancy, and what properly constitutes actionable seduction.

Holding:

The High Court, presided over by Edward Wiredu J., dismissed the appeal of the first defendant, Gyan alias Amoah, affirming his liability, but allowed the appeal of the second defendant, Gyan’s father, thereby exonerating the father from any liability. The Court’s specific holdings were:

1. The Court acknowledged that traditional customary law, as articulated by scholars like Sarbah and Dr. Danquah, did indeed hold a father primarily responsible for his son’s immoral conduct. This responsibility was based not merely on physical control but also on the father’s duty in the son’s moral upbringing and the provision for marriage while the son was still considered under his “tutelage”.

• However, the Court emphasized that this customary principle requires modification to align with present-day social and economic changes. The rapid changes, where sons often leave home early to seek employment and control their own affairs, necessitate a different approach.
• Crucially, the Court held that a father can exonerate himself from liability if he establishes that his son has been emancipated out of boyhood, has attained the age of manhood, and is in control of his own affairs. Given the undisputed evidence that Gyan alias Amoah (a teacher) was living independently and managing his own affairs, his father was therefore not held liable. The Court clarified that the case of Addae v. Asante 2 G.L.R. 288, did not establish a general rule against father’s responsibility for seduction, but rather dealt with specific issues of estoppel and a literal interpretation of the custom.
• The Court noted the lack of clarity in case law but suggested that seduction actions under customary law should primarily be confined to cases where sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. This is because it is only then that the “dishonour done to the family becomes apparent”.
• It clarified that a seduced girl’s direct cause of action should be limited to maintenance during confinement and for the child, as she is typically a consenting party to the act. Damages for the dishonour done are appropriately limited to the family. Since Miss Elizabeth Dabrah was indeed pregnant, the dishonour was apparent, and Gyan alias Amoah was rightly found liable for damages.

Implications of the Decision:

This judgment marks a significant judicial adaptation of customary law to modern Ghanaian realities. It establishes that parental responsibility for adult children’s misconduct under customary law is not absolute and can be nullified if the son is emancipated and self-sufficient. This provides a more equitable framework for customary law in contemporary society. The decision also brings clarity to seduction actions, affirming that pregnancy is a crucial element for a customary claim for dishonour, which primarily benefits the family, while the seduced individual’s claim focuses on maintenance. Furthermore, the ruling offers practical guidance to lower courts on how to fairly assess unchallenged evidence in trials involving unrepresented, illiterate litigants.

Significant Quote:

“Whilst it is an undeniable fact that the present days’ events cannot be said to be the same as in the past when any talk of free love was intolerable, sex by the youth these days has become a common feature in our society and therefore justifies a call for a new look and consideration of this aspect of the custom; any move however which calls for a total disregard of parental responsibility in this regard as appears to be the view expressed by Edusei J. in the Addae case (supra) should with respect be strongly resisted. For not only is such a call undesirable but also unjustifiable. It would in the first place seek to advocate for a relaxation of parental duty to control the moral conduct of their children and secondly throw the whole society into chaos by encouraging unchecked moral degeneration in the youth generally. Even though the present society is less sophisticated that it used to be in the past, the basis upon which the custom of giving a father a say in marriage contracted by his son and sharing part of the responsibility is not only ideal but desirable.”- Edward Wiredu J

Commentary/Insight:

This decision is a profound illustration of the judiciary’s active role in ensuring the relevance and fairness of customary law within a changing society. The Court skillfully navigated the tension between preserving traditional values and responding to contemporary social and economic shifts. By introducing the concept of emancipation for adult sons as a defense for fathers, the judgment modernised a traditional principle without advocating for its total abolition, thereby safeguarding against unchecked moral degeneration while acknowledging individual autonomy. The clarification of what constitutes actionable seduction and the distinction between the claims of the seduced person and their family helped resolve long-standing ambiguities in this area of law.