A person who promises marriage can still be held legally responsible for breaking that promise, even if they were already married under the Ordinance when the promise was made, the Court of Appeal in Kumasi has ruled in a significant judgment clarifying Ghana’s common law position on breach of promise to marry.
The decision, delivered in the case of Benjamin Yeboah Anokye v. Priscilla Atsu [TLP-CA-2026-33], also makes clear that simply being in a romantic relationship or spending money to improve a partner’s property does not automatically create ownership rights over that property.
The three-member panel, made up of Justices Baah, Kogyapwah and Dr Adusei, held that an action for breach of promise to marry remains valid under Ghanaian common law where the legal requirements are satisfied.
According to thelawplatform.online, the dispute stemmed from a relationship between Benjamin Yeboah Anokye and Priscilla Atsu that lasted from 2011 to 2017 and resulted in the birth of a son.
During that period, Anokye moved Atsu from Tamale to Kumasi, accepted responsibility for their child and accommodated both mother and son in a house at South Suntreso in Kumasi.
After the relationship ended, Atsu maintained that the South Suntreso property had been given to her as a gift. She said she performed the customary thanksgiving ceremony known as “aseda” to acknowledge receiving the house and further argued that Anokye had promised to marry her but failed to fulfil that commitment.
Based on those claims, she asked the court to declare her the rightful owner of the property and award damages for breach of promise to marry.
Anokye rejected both claims, insisting that the house had never been gifted to Atsu and denying that he had ever promised to marry her. He also argued that because he was already married under the Ordinance, he could not be liable for breaching a promise to marry.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with that argument, ruling that an existing statutory marriage does not shield a person from liability if their conduct led another person to reasonably believe that a marriage would take place.
The judges pointed to evidence showing that Anokye introduced Atsu as his fiancée, relocated her to Kumasi and openly assumed responsibility for their child. In the court’s view, those actions supported the finding that there had been a genuine promise of marriage.
The court therefore upheld an award of GH¢40,000 in damages for breach of promise to marry.
However, it rejected Atsu’s claim to ownership of the South Suntreso house after finding that she had not produced sufficient evidence to prove it had been transferred to her as a gift.
The judges explained that a valid gift requires clear proof of the donor’s intention to give the property, acceptance by the recipient and evidence that ownership was actually transferred. They also found inconsistencies in the evidence relating to the alleged “aseda” ceremony.
The court further ruled that the doctrine of advancement, which may create a presumption of a gift between spouses, does not extend to unmarried couples.
Although Atsu failed to secure ownership of the property, the court awarded her GH¢25,000 to reimburse money she had spent improving the house.
The appellate court also criticised the involvement of the police in the dispute, describing it as a civil matter that should have been left for the courts to determine.
In its final orders, the court overturned the earlier decision that allowed Atsu to remain in the house indefinitely. Instead, it directed that she be given three months to find alternative accommodation.
The judges further ordered that Anokye could only recover possession of the property after paying the GH¢40,000 awarded for breach of promise to marry together with the GH¢25,000 reimbursement for improvements made to the house.
The ruling does not affect Anokye’s continuing legal obligation to provide care and maintenance for their son in accordance with the Children’s Act.
