High Court · SUIT NO. DM/0120/2016 · Ghana
Introduction:
At stake was whether dissatisfaction, impotence, childlessness, and long separation were enough to dissolve a marriage that had, on paper, been properly celebrated. The Court had to weigh raw human frustration against the rigid requirements of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367).
Facts:
Harriet Akrofi (Petitioner), a banker, and Frank Doku (Respondent), a nurse, tied the knot on 3rd July 2009 in Accra. Their home after marriage was in London, but it was anything but blissful. Harriet told the Court that behind closed doors, her husband’s impotence and reliance on injections to perform made intimacy “nothing to write home about” as “he [comes] quickly”. To make matters worse, Frank’s low sperm count meant she could not conceive, and her in-laws did not spare her the ridicule – at her grandmother’s funeral, Frank’s younger brother openly taunted her for being barren.
By January 2013, Harriet had had enough. She left London and resettled in Ghana, taking up work in a financial institution. From that date, the couple never lived together again. On 31st March 2016, Harriet filed for divorce in Ghana.
Frank did not contest the petition. Instead, his younger brother, armed with a power of attorney, appeared in Court and calmly told the judge: Frank consents to the divorce.
Issues Before the Court:
- Can impotence or childlessness justify divorce under Ghanaian law?
- Does sexual dissatisfaction amount to cruelty?
- If not, does long separation with consent provide a sufficient legal ground?
Holding:
Justice Cecilia Don-Chebe Agbevey held as follows:
- Aslong as there was consummation (full and complete sexual intercourse) – and Harriet admitted there was, albeit aided by injections- the marriage was valid.
- Under Section 2(1)(d) of Act 367, if the parties have not lived as man and wife for two continuous years and the Respondent consents, the Court may dissolve the marriage. That was exactly the case here. Harriet had been in Ghana since 2013, and Frank had formally consented.
The marriage, therefore, was dissolved.
Implications:
This decision reminds us that not every grievance in a marriage can be transformed into a legal ground for divorce. Ghanaian law does not recognise childlessness, impotence, or disappointment in sexual life as standalone grounds. The law instead looks for objective facts like separation, consent, adultery, or cruelty in its strict sense.
Yet, the case also highlights a practical escape route: two years’ separation plus consent provides a straightforward and humane way to end marriages that are effectively dead. For Harriet and Frank, this legal door was the only one open, and the Court allowed them to walk through it.
Significant Quote:
“Impotence subsequent to the consummation of a marriage or childlessness are not grounds for the dissolution of a marriage… the mere fact that the Respondent cannot sustain an erection without medication and the Petitioner’s childlessness are not grounds for the dissolution of the marriage.”
“a wife’s frustration and inclination to weep because of the husband’s inability to satisfy her sexually due to an affliction did not amount to cruelty and thereby did not entitle her to a divorce”
- Cecilia Don-Chebe Agbevey J.
Commentary / Insight:
The case is a sobering reminder of the gap between human expectation and legal definition. Harriet wanted a partner who could give her children and sexual satisfaction; the law, however, was unmoved by these intimate complaints for the dissolution of marriages under ordinance. Instead, it focused strictly on the statutory framework.
What is striking is the contrast with customary law. Under Section 41(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), grounds such as impotence, barrenness, or sterility may justify a customary divorce But because Harriet and Frank married under the Marriage Ordinance, those grounds were unavailable to her. This case, therefore, illustrates how Ghanaian law distinguishes sharply between ordinance and customary marriages in determining what counts as a legitimate reason for divorce.
