 
JUDGEMENT  
On the 16th of December, 2014, the Petitioner instituted the present divorce proceedings against the Respondent seeking the following reliefs:  
a) The dissolution of the marriage  
b) An order for the Respondent to pay a lump sum financial compensation of GH¢ 20,000.00 to the Petitioner  
c) The Respondent pays the cost of the proceeding.  
The main allegation upon which Petitioner grounds the instant Petition is that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation on account of the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour.   
The Respondent in his “RESPONSE TO PETITION” filed on the 13th day of February, 2015 admitted that the marriage had broken down but prayed in his Cross Petition   that the Court refers the Parties to a Court appointed Counselor for a final attempt at reconciliation.   
2  
The Parties, both Ghanaians were married under the Ordinance on the 9th day of March, 1996, having been married customarily some 7 years prior to the said date. After, the marriage they cohabited at the Ministry of Finance flats, Dansoman, Accra between the years of 1990 and 1998 and then moved into their own house at Dome in September, 1998. There are two adult children of the marriage namely Kekeli Dumoga aged 25 years and Delali Dumoga aged 22 years.  
At the close of pleadings, the suit was fixed for hearing on the 28th day of May 2015 but suffered three subsequent adjournments because the Respondent, who entered appearance to the Petition by himself, was absent on each occasion. Upon being satisfied that Respondent had spurned every opportunity afforded him to be present at the trial, this Court proceeded to hear the evidence of Petitioner on the 2nd day of July, 2015 in Respondent’s absence.   
The testimony of the Petitioner is that the marriage between the parties has broken down beyond reconciliation because of the unreasonable behavior or conduct of the Respondent. The Petitioner cited a number of incidents to substantiate her allegation that Respondent had behaved unreasonably during the subsistence of the marriage. According to the Petitioner, the parties have been living apart since the year 2007, two years prior to the said separation the Respondent who had moved out of the matrimonial bedroom into the guest room, took to threatening and abusive behavior by constantly terrorizing Petitioner that he will kill her and kill himself, if she did not leave the matrimonial home. What the Petitioner termed the “exchange of assaults and accusations” had become the order of the day in the matrimonial home whilst the children (who were rather young then) looked on helplessly. On the 17th of April, 2007 matters came to a head when the Respondent in the morning of that day, followed the Petitioner from church as she drove to Lapaz, a suburb of Accra  to visit a friend. Upon realizing that she was being trailed by the Respondent, Petitioner parked midway to find out from him if there was any special reason why he was following her.  According to Petitioner, the Respondent right there in the street and in the full glare of the general public, hurled insults at her, calling her a prostitute and demanded that she leave his house. Obviously embarrassed by the scene that was being created, Petitioner rushed back into her car and sped off but the Respondent, undaunted, followed her to her friend’s house where he continued with his threats and insults. It only took the intervention of the said friend, for Respondent to end his verbal tirade and to finally agree to leave but this he did, only after he had driven into Petitioner’s car on purpose, damaging its side mirror in the process.  As if this was not enough, Petitioner returned home later that day to find that her belongings had been thrown out of the matrimonial home by the Respondent who in addition subjected her to severe beatings for her refusal to pay heed to his orders that she leave the matrimonial home.  All attempts by the Petitioner to return her things to the matrimonial home were stoutly resisted by Respondent thus leaving her with no other option than to report the matter to the Domestic Violence and Victim Unit (DOVVSU) of the Ghana Police Service. Upon the intervention of personnel at DOVVSU, Respondent was very categorical that he no longer wanted the Petitioner back in the matrimonial home. Having been left stranded at the police station, Petitioner was advised by DOVVSU, to find temporary accommodation and to pursue the matter in Court since the police   “could not handle divorce issues”.  There was yet another charge of adultery leveled against the Respondent by the Petitioner, which according to her, resulted in him fathering a child out of wedlock. 
3  
According to Petitioner, Respondent had persisted in his philandering during the entire period that the parties lived together under the same roof and also for the period that they have been separated.  In response to Respondent’s invitation to the Court that the matter be referred to a Conciliator for an attempt at resolving the parties differences, Petitioner was adamant that it will serve no useful purpose since she no longer loved the Respondent and that the said prayer was merely a ploy by Respondent to frustrate or delay the hearing of the Petition.  At the close of Petitioner’s case, this Court adjourned the Petition to the 22nd day of July 2015 for judgment in view of the obvious lack of interest demonstrated by Respondent in prosecuting his Cross Petition.  However, on the day on which judgment was to be delivered, the Respondent appeared in Court evincing an earnest desire to prosecute his case despite his tardiness.  This Court therefore rescinded its decision to deliver judgment and acceded to Respondent’s request to be given a hearing, subject to costs.  After the hearing of a series of applications filed by Respondent, the last hearing being on the 27th day of July 2015, the suit was (due to the impending legal vacation) adjourned to the 4th of November, 2015 for the Respondent to cross-examine the Petitioner on her testimony.   
On the 4th day of November, 2015, the Respondent failed to make an appearance in Court on grounds that he was indisposed and prayed that the matter be adjourned to the 18th day of November 2015, which request was granted by the Court. Similarly, he failed to make an appearance on the 18th day of November, 2015 on grounds that he had had to travel out of the jurisdiction for treatment. The Court again adjourned the matter but this time, in view of the inordinate delay the case had suffered, ordered that the matter be heard continuously for three consecutive days being the 1st 2nd and 3rd day of December, 2015.  On the 1st day of December 2015 however, this Court received a letter signed by one Rommel Kudjoe asking that the matter be adjourned for a further three weeks because Respondent who had been discharged from the hospital was “under medical advice, confined to bed, rest and taking medication”.    Respondent finally appeared in Court on the 21st of December 2015 to cross-examine the Petitioner.  At the close of the case for Petitioner, Respondent applied orally to the Court for “leave to withdraw his answer but to maintain paragraphs 2 and 3 of his Cross Petition.”  Not surprisingly, this oral application was vehemently opposed by Counsel for the Petitioner. The suit was adjourned to the 20th day of January, 2016 for ruling on the Respondent’s application. Unfortunately, on the said date this Court did not sit because the Court’s support staff were out on a demonstration and therefore did not report to work.  The case was thus fixed for the 10th of February 2016 and hearing notices duly served on Respondent.   On the 10th of February, 2016, the Respondent was again absent without conveying any reason for his non-attendance. This Court, having regard to the background and record of the Respondent’s conduct of the case up to that point, proceeded to deliver its ruling on the Respondent’s oral application and ordered that Respondent repeats his application to withdraw his “RESPONSE TO PETITION” formally within seven days failing which the order would lapse.  There is evidence on record that the Respondent, on that very day applied for and obtained a copy of the said ruling. However, he, in wanton disregard for the orders of this Court failed to comply within the time stipulated. Respondent has since persisted in the regrettable pattern of absenting himself from Court without assigning reasons, resulting in several avoidable adjournments. I have deliberately taken the trouble to set out these facts in this judgment, in order to demonstrate the 
4  
lengths to which this Court has gone in accommodating the Respondent’s dilatory tactics. Indeed I must say that I am, by the turn of events persuaded to agree with the Petitioner that the sole aim of the Respondent was to ostensibly frustrate the hearing of the instant Petition.  
Be that as it may, the Respondent having declined to testify in support of the averments in his “RESPONSE TO PETITION” and Cross Petition, leaves this Court with no other option than to accept the evidence of Petitioner. I should also add for good measure, that Respondent’s cross examination of Petitioner, in my opinion, failed to unearth any concrete challenge to her evidence.  I therefore find Petitioner’s allegations proved against the Respondent.   
The Respondent in his Cross Petition prayed that the parties be referred to a Court appointed counselor for a final attempt at reconciliation. Petitioner was however dismissive of the said suggestion on grounds that it was just a cunning attempt by Respondent to delay or frustrate the hearing of the matter. I must confess that the conduct exhibited by Respondent from the inception of the trial to date has induced in me the feeling that Petitioner was justified in holding this view.  Given the facts and circumstances of this case, there was indeed no need for this Court to have exercised its powers under section 8 (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, as any adjournment for an attempt at reconciliation would have served no useful purpose SEE THE CASE OF MENSAH V MENSAH 1972 2GLR @198.  
Having found the case of Petitioner proven, the issue that remains to be addressed is whether this entitles her to an automatic grant of her prayer for a dissolution of the marriage. By section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Act 367, the Court should not grant a Petition for divorce unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. This means that the ultimate decision regarding whether or not the marriage between the Parties has broken down beyond reconciliation rests solely with this Court even though the Petitioner in this suit has been found to have proved her case.  
The unchallenged evidence before me shows that the Parties have not lived as husband and wife since April 2007. I find upon the facts, that it was the Respondent who in an attempt to bring the marriage to an end did everything within his power to make life unbearable for the Petitioner. This included constant threats and assaults, fathering a child outside the marriage and finally driving her out of the matrimonial home. The Parties have been separated for a considerable period of time, but quite clearly, due to Respondent’s unreasonable behavior, Petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to continue with the marriage. I agree with Petitioner, based on the evidence before me, that the relationship between the Parties has so disintegrated that there is no hope for reconciliation. In my opinion, the relationship that has existed between the Parties for the past 9 years or so has only been an “empty shell” and much as the Court is enjoined to discourage divorce, it is empowered to dissolve marriages that have broken down irretrievably. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that that the marriage between the Parties has broken down irretrievably and I accordingly grant the Petitioner’s prayer for the dissolution of the marriage.  
There have been conflicting assertions regarding which of the Parties has been responsible for the upkeep of the two adult children of the marriage. I do not attach 
5  
much importance to the said claims since none of the Parties is seeking any reliefs regarding the said children. Both Parties appear happy performing their parental duties and I consider it prudent that the status quo be maintained.  
It is to the reliefs being sought by the Petitioner that I now turn. The Petitioner prays the Court for the following reliefs in addition to seeking a dissolution of the marriage;  i) An order for the Respondent to pay a lump sum financial compensation of 20, 000.00 to Petitioner  
ii) That Respondent bears the cost of the Petition.  
Article 22(3) b of the 1992 Constitution provides that upon the dissolution of a marriage assets jointly acquired during marriage shall be distributed equitably between the spouses. On the evidence, the Parties jointly acquired a house at Dome during the subsistence of the marriage but the Petitioner is not making any claims to same. In my thinking, even if the Petitioner made no direct contributions towards the acquisition of the said house, she still, on the authority of MENSAH V MENSAH [2012]1SCGLR @ 391 would have been entitled to an equal share of it.  This notwithstanding, I have, as mandated by section 20 (1) of Matrimonial Causes Act, Act 367, taken time to carefully consider all the facts and circumstances of this case and I deem it just and equitable to grant the Petitioner’s prayer for GH¢20,000.00 as financial settlement.  
I cannot however conclude this judgment without commenting on the egregious conduct exhibited by the Respondent from the inception of this matter. This Court is very alive to the fact that the Respondent was before this Court only as a party to these divorce proceedings  and not as Counsel but I must say, that the conduct of  the Respondent, who never missed an opportunity to remind this Court of the fact of he being  member of this Honorable Legal Profession, fell far short of  one who understood  that “a lawyer’s overriding duty to the Court is to facilitate the administration of justice to the standards set by the  legal profession” SEE THE SPEECH  DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MARILYN WARREN, CJ OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA AT THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND ANNUAL CONFRENCE DATED 6TH OF MARCH, 2011.   
Order 1 (1) (2) of C I 47, normally referred to as the spirit of the rules underpins the need for all Parties concerned in the process of litigation  to work towards the  avoidance of unnecessary postponements and delayed justice which fact ought not to have been lost on the Respondent  as an officer of this Court . The wanton disregard for the rules of Court and the lack of diligence exhibited by the Respondent in this matter stands to be deprecated and I do so in no uncertain terms. A new day has dawned, the days of avoidable protracted litigation are over and I believe it is the duty of all stakeholders in the justice delivery system to work assiduously towards the speedy, inexpensive and effective delivery of justice. In conclusion I hereby make the following Orders:  
1. That the marriage celebrated between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the 9th day of   March 1996 is hereby dissolved.  
6  
2. That the Respondent do pay a lump sum of GH¢20,000.00 to the Petitioner as financial settlement.  
3. Costs of GH¢5,000.00 is hereby awarded in favour of Petitioner against the Respondent.    
             [SGD] MRS. AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH, J.    JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT 