Published February 23, 2026
GHS 200,000 For breach of promise to marry: Matters arising from Vince Kontoh v. Ernestina Torgbor
On 16th February 2026, the Circuit Court, Accra, presided over by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, held that Madam Ernestina Torgbor was entitled to the sum of GH₵200,000.00 as damages for breach of promise to marry.
The facts are that the parties had cohabited for eleven (11) years. During that period, the Plaintiff, by his words and conduct, represented to the Defendant that he intended to marry her. Plaintiff, inter alia, presented a promise ring, had the Defendant relocate from her primary residence to a property belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s assumed the role of a husband during the funeral rites of the Defendant’s father.
The relationship, however deteriorated. The Plaintiff ultimately terminated the relationship and sought to eject the Defendant from the property through a court action. In response, the Defendant counterclaimed for breach of promise to marry.
Breach of promise to marry occupies a somewhat hybrid space in the law. While it bears features of both tort and contract, the Ghanaian position is that it is contractual in character.As with general contract law, there are some elements that a Plaintiff must prove in an action for breach of promise to marry. First is that there must be a promise to marry. The law expects mutuality of the promise, which serves as consideration and which by extension creates a legal relationship.
It must however be noted that per the authorities, a promise need not to be express: it may arise by necessary implication from the conduct of the parties. In the instant case, the trial judge found evidence of the man’s promise to marry through the conduct of the parties; as for example by the woman moving in to live with the man for many years; and by the man presenting himself as a son-in-law to the family of the woman and making donations at the funeral rites of the woman’s father among others. Comparable acts in case law have included the giving a Bible or a ring to the woman.
The second element is breach. A breach occurs when the one who made the promise of marriage fails or refuses to perform.This may be express as where one party states an intention not to marry. It may also arise by conduct, as seen in a case of the man contracting a monogamous marriage to another woman. Since a monogamous marriage does not allow for more than one wife, by marrying another woman, then by that conduct, the promise to marry has been breached.
It is instructive to add that there is no remedy of specific performance in an action for a breach of promise to marry. The court cannot compel unwilling parties to marry, for marriage is a voluntary union.The remedy lies in damages. From the decided cases, the known damages awarded are compensatory damages, aggravated damages and punitive damages.
A defendant in an action for breach of promise to marry may raise some defences, including unchastity, fornication by the other or bad character, illegality, which would be interpreted to mean a situation whereby the marriage would have been against the law. A classic example is where both parties were already in married under the Ordinance at the time of the promise.
US Supreme Court Bares its teeth
President Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, the Supreme Court ruled Friday, in a repudiation of a signature White House initiative.
The 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, removes a diplomatic tool that Trump has aggressively wielded to remake U.S. trade deals and collect tens of billions of dollars from companies importing foreign goods. Roberts rejected the White House’s view of the president’s power “to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will,” adding: “That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy.”
“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote. The Wall Street Journal
EC Boss and Special Prosecutor out of the woods
The Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has determined that the petitions seeking the removal of the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, Mrs Jean Mensa, her two deputies and the Special Prosecutor, Mr Kissi Agyebeng, failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant further constitutional action.
This decision was disclosed by the Presidency in a statement issued on February 18, 2026.
According to the statement, President Mahama had received seven petitions from individuals and groups for the removal Mrs Jean Mensa (Chairperson of the Electoral Commision) and her deputies, Dr Bossman Eric Asare, Deputy Chairperson in charge of Corporate Services, and Mr Samuel Tettey, Deputy Chairperson in charge of Operations. In addition, three separate petitions sought the removal of Mr Agyebeng.
Pursuant to Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution and Section 15 of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), President Mahama referred the petitions to the Chief Justice on November 25, 2025, for a preliminary determination on whether they disclosed a prima facie case for further proceedings.
The Chief Justice’s finding effectively halts the constitutional removal process reaffirming the high evidentiary threshold required before such proceedings may advance.
