Case of the Week: Happee v Happee and Another

High Court, Sekondi · [1974] 2 GLR 186 · May 30, 1974 · Ghana

Introduction:

This case demonstrates how sustained unreasonable behaviour and desertion can ground the dissolution of a marriage under Ghana’s Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). It also illustrates how the courts balance custody and financial provision upon divorce.

Facts:

The Petitioner, a Dutch marine engineer resident in Ghana since 1947, married the Respondent, a Ghanaian, in 1951. They lived together in Sekondi-Takoradi until their separation around 1968/1969.

The Petitioner sought divorce on grounds that the Respondent’s conduct made continued cohabitation intolerable. The Respondent engaged in a sustained pattern of harassment and humiliation:

1. She publicly abused him, stormed his workplace, and repeatedly demanded that he leave Ghana.
2. She intruded upon private meetings, including creating a scene at his solicitor’s office over their marriage certificate.
3. She threatened his life, forcing police intervention.
4. She wrote false reports to his employer in Paris, accusing him of theft, and to his Masonic lodge, questioning his fitness for office—both dismissed as baseless.
5. In a violent episode, she smashed his car windscreen and was convicted (though the fine was later set aside on humanitarian grounds).
6. Most dramatically, she orchestrated his illegal removal from an aircraft at Kotoka Airport through police collusion, preventing him from travelling abroad.

The Petitioner argued that no reasonable man could continue to live with such a woman. The Respondent cross-petitioned for judicial separation and alleged adultery (which was not proven).

Their only child, a daughter born in 1955, was nearly 19 years old and in secondary school at the time of the proceedings.

Holding:

The Court found that:

1. The Respondent’s conduct amounted to unreasonable behaviour, making it impossible for the Petitioner to be expected to live with her. The marriage had irretrievably broken down.
2. The Respondent had also deserted the Petitioner for at least two years.
3. Divorce was granted, and the Respondent’s claim for judicial separation was dismissed.
4. Custody of the daughter was awarded to the Petitioner, with access to the mother as the daughter desired.
5. The Petitioner was ordered to pay ¢2,500 as a lump sum settlement to enable the Respondent to make a fresh start.

Significant Quote:

“No man, however conciliatory he may be can, even with the patience of the biblical Job, tolerate a woman of the calibre of the respondent.”
– Edusei J.

Implications of the Decision:

The judgment highlights the readiness of the courts to grant a divorce where one party’s conduct makes the continuance of marriage unreasonable. It shows the importance of Act 367 in enabling jurisdiction based on residence rather than domicile and demonstrates the court’s child – centred approach to custody decisions.

legal Commentary and Insight:

This case stands as an example of how persistent hostility and harassment within a marriage can justify its dissolution. It reminds spouses that the law will protect individuals from oppressive and unreasonable treatment and that courts will focus on the welfare of children when deciding custody.

Cultural Commentary

Notably, this case reverses typical expectations: a male petitioner seeking divorce due to female-perpetrated abuse. In many societies, including Ghana, men are often conditioned to tolerate emotional or psychological abuse without complaint. This case boldly affirms that protection from domestic oppression is not gendered, and the legal system must protect men and women alike when their dignity and safety are threatened in marriage.

Reflections

While the judgment brought legal closure, the human story continued. Their daughter, who was nearly an adult, was likely shaped by witnessing this long domestic conflict. Whether the Petitioner remained in Ghana or the Respondent rebuilt her life is unknown. What the case leaves behind is not just a dissolved marriage, but a warning about how unresolved emotional violence can corrode the very foundation of domestic life, and a reminder that the law can be a refuge for those caught in its grip.