21 Dec Asamoah Gyan vs Gifty Gyan [Unreported Judgment] Suit No: DM 0263/2018 Delivered on 31st October 2023
“Where two persons having legal capacity voluntarily agree to contract a marriage for reasons of convenience, or for immigration purposes, in the absence of any statute specifically rendering such a marriage void, same is valid and binding on the parties.”
On 31st August 2013, the Petitioner and the Respondent celebrated their marriage under Part 3 of the Marriages Act, 1884-1985 (CAP 127). Together, they had three children.
According to the Petitioner, at the time the marriage with the Respondent was contracted, the Respondent was already married to one Eugene Odame Antwi under Part 3 of CAP 127. The Petitioner therefore prayed the Court to annul his marriage to the Respondent on grounds that it was void from its conception.
The Respondent on the other hand submitted that her marriage to Eugene Odame Antwi was void from its inception because it was for immigration purposes only (marriage of convenience), to enable her to obtain documents to travel to Italy for medical care. She also contended that the marriage was void on the grounds that she was a minor aged seventeen (17) years when she got married and could not have contracted a marriage without the consent of her parents. She therefore invited the Court to disregard the Petitioner’s prayer for annulment and sought a dissolution of the marriage between herself and the Petitioner.
The Learned Judge in addressing the legal status of the marriage between the Respondent and Eugene Odame Antwi, examined the grounds upon which the Respondent contended that her marriage to Eugene Odame Antwi was void.
On the first ground, the court held that the marriage was valid and could not be said to be void on grounds that it was contracted for immigration purposes only, in the absence of any statute specifically rendering such a marriage void.
On the second ground, the court having established that the Respondent was 17 years old at the time of her marriage to Eugene Odame Antwi, unequivocally stated that the Respondent was a child on the date of her marriage and thus had no legal capacity to give consent to marriage. That notwithstanding, the court held that since marriages involving minors are not provided for as one of the unions the law deems invalid under Section 74 of CAP 127, the marriage between the Respondent and Eugene Odame Antwi could not be declared void or invalid.
The Court further explained that proceeding on the presumption of validity as stated in Section 75 of CAP 127, until someone takes steps to annul or dissolve the marriage, it remained valid.
On the status of the marriage between the Respondent and the Petitioner, the court held that the marriage was not void merely based on the Respondent’s prior existing marriage under the Marriages Act. The Honorable Judge reasoned that Section 74 of CAP 127 and other provisions of the said Act, do not envisage or contemplate a situation where a person who has a prior monogamous marriage under the Marriages Act, will or can proceed to contract a subsequent monogamous marriage with another person under the said Act.
The Court however granted the Petitioner’s relief for a Decree of Nullity on the basis of deception by the Respondent, having fraudulently misrepresented to him that she was a spinster at the time of the marriage on which he relied to his detriment.
Insight: Once two parties voluntarily consent to marry and satisfy all the conditions required under the law, the marriage is valid even if it was contracted for immigration purposes or was a marriage of convenience. Such a marriage relationship cannot be terminated except through matrimonial proceedings in court.