Court awards GH¢200k for damaged marriage promise – Life Pulse Daily

##Court Awards GH¢200k for Damaged Marriage Promise – Life Pulse Daily

**Introduction**
A landmark Accra Circuit Court ruling has delivered significant legal and financial consequences for a broken promise of marriage. In a case highlighting the tangible value of emotional and financial investment in relationships, businessman Vince Kontoh was ordered to pay a total of GH¢200,000 to his former partner, Ernestina Torgbor. This judgment underscores the growing recognition of “breach of promise to marry” as a legitimate legal claim with substantial economic repercussions. This article delves into the details of the court’s decision, the circumstances surrounding the relationship, and the broader implications for modern partnerships.

**Key Points**
* **Damages Awarded:** GH¢200,000 total (GH¢50,000 basic damages + GH¢150,000 reimbursement).
* **Interest:** Vince must pay interest at prevailing commercial bank rates from February 16th.
* **Property Rights:** Ernestina retains beneficial ownership of a Toyota RAV4 vehicle and a commercial blender.
* **Residence:** Ernestina maintains her beneficial interest in a six-unit, two-bedroom apartment block at East Legon.
* **Legal Finding:** The court found a binding promise of marriage existed, despite Vince’s denial.
* **Court:** Accra Circuit Court presided over by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam.
* **Date:** Ruling issued following a writ of summons filed in 2017.

**Background**
The legal battle stemmed from the termination of an 11-year romantic relationship between Vince Kontoh and Ernestina Torgbor. The couple began dating in 2013, with Vince residing outside Ghana and Ernestina living in Ghana. Their relationship evolved significantly over the decade.

Vince provided substantial financial support, including funding for commercial equipment and a Toyota RAV4 vehicle. He also contributed to the education of Ernestina’s children and financed the construction of a six-unit, two-bedroom apartment block at East Legon. Crucially, Ernestina supervised the construction and managed the budgets Vince remitted. In 2017, at Vince’s request, she relocated from Dansoman to East Legon.

Throughout the relationship, Vince presented Ernestina with a ring and publicly referred to himself as her “in-law” during her father’s funeral. He wrote a tribute and donated money. They cohabited as a committed couple until Vince terminated the relationship in 2024, allegedly expressing a preference for an unemployed woman who could care for him.

**Analysis**
The court’s judgment centered on the critical question of whether a binding promise of marriage existed between the parties. Vince vehemently denied any such promise, claiming the ring was merely given to “ward off male attention.” Ernestina countered that the ring symbolized a firm commitment, and that she had relied on his repeated assurances of marriage for 11 years.

Justice Kwadam meticulously examined the totality of the evidence presented. The court found the ring, coupled with the long-term cohabitation, significant financial interdependence (Vince’s funding of equipment, vehicle, education, and construction), public acknowledgment as in-law, and Ernestina’s substantial sacrifices (supervising construction, surrendering her Dansoman residence, providing home, emotional, and mental support) collectively created a clear and unequivocal promise to marry. The judge described Vince’s explanation regarding the ring as “unconvincing.”

The court recognized Ernestina’s contributions as creating a “beneficial interest” in the property (the apartment block and the vehicle/blender). This interest, while not conferring full legal ownership (which Vince retained), was deemed protected by equity. Consequently, Vince’s claim for ejectment was dismissed, and Ernestina was awarded damages for the breach of this promise.

**Practical Advice**
1. **Document Agreements:** While informal promises are common, documenting significant financial contributions or commitments (e.g., via emails, texts, witness statements) can provide crucial evidence if disputes arise.
2. **Seek Legal Counsel Early:** Before entering into a long-term relationship with significant financial implications, consider consulting a lawyer about potential legal protections or understandings, especially if one party is providing substantial support.
3. **Understand Property Rights:** Be aware that even without a formal marriage, long-term cohabitation and financial contributions can sometimes lead to claims regarding property ownership or division, as demonstrated by this case.
4. **Communicate Clearly:** Open and honest communication about expectations, including potential future commitments like marriage, is vital to avoid misunderstandings and potential legal conflicts.
5. **Consider Mediation:** For disputes arising from broken relationships, mediation can offer a less adversarial and potentially faster resolution than court proceedings.

**FAQ**
* **Q: What does “breach of promise to marry” mean?** A: It’s a legal claim where one party alleges that the other party made a clear promise to marry them, but then broke that promise, causing financial or emotional harm.
* **Q: What damages can be awarded?** A: Courts can award various damages, including compensation for financial losses incurred in reliance on the promise (like education costs or property contributions), emotional distress, and potentially reimbursement for specific expenses.
* **Q: Can property be claimed after a relationship ends?** A: Yes, if one party can prove they contributed significantly to the acquisition or improvement of property (like paying for construction or maintenance), they may have a claim to a beneficial interest, even if they are not the legal owner.
* **Q: Is this ruling common?** A: While not extremely common, courts increasingly recognize the validity of “breach of promise” claims, especially when there is clear evidence of a promise and significant detriment suffered by the relying party.
* **Q: What is a “beneficial interest”?** A: It’s a legal concept meaning a right to enjoy the benefits of a property (like living there or receiving income from it) even if the legal title is held by someone else. Equity law protects these interests.

**Conclusion**
The Accra Circuit Court’s decision to award GH¢200,000 to Ernestina Torgbor for the breach of Vince Kontoh’s promise of marriage represents a significant legal precedent. It validates the substantial value placed on emotional commitment and financial investment within long-term relationships, even without formal marriage. The ruling emphasizes that promises, when supported by clear evidence of reliance and detriment, carry legal weight and can result in tangible financial consequences. This case serves as a crucial reminder for individuals in long-term relationships to be mindful of the potential legal implications of their commitments and the importance of clear communication regarding expectations.

**Sources**
* Life Pulse Daily. (2026, February 17). Court awards GH¢200k for damaged marriage promise. [Original Article]

**Disclaimer**
The views, comments, opinions, contributions, and statements made by readers and contributors on this platform do not necessarily constitute the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.