An Accra Circuit Court has ordered a businessman to pay GH¢200,000 in damages after terminating an 11-year relationship built on a promise of marriage, triggering a legal battle over property and emotional loss.

The Court entered judgment in favour of Ms Ernestina Torgbor, the defendant, on her counterclaim for breach of promise to marry against Mr Vince Kontoh, the plaintiff.

Presided over by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, a High Court Judge sitting with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court Judge, the Court awarded Ernestina GH¢50,000 as general damages and GH¢150,000 as compensation for the breach.

The Court also ordered Vince to pay interest at prevailing commercial bank rates on the amount from February 16, and awarded GH¢20,000 in favour of Ernestina.

It further declared that Ernestina had a beneficial interest in a two-bedroom apartment at East Legon, Accra, and directed that she should continue to use a Toyota RAV4 vehicle and an industrial blender, since Vince had laid no claim to them.

The parties were also directed to take all necessary steps to regularise Ernestina’s interest in a six-unit, two-bedroom apartment block at East Legon.

The ruling followed a writ of summons filed by Vince, seeking an order of ejectment against Ernestina after terminating their relationship. Ernestina resisted the claim and filed a counterclaim for breach of promise to marry.

The Court heard that the parties began their romantic relationship in 2013, at a time when Vince lived outside the jurisdiction while Ernestina resided in Ghana.

During the relationship, Vince provided funds for industrial machinery and a vehicle, contributed to the education of Ernestina’s children, and financed the construction of the six-unit apartment block at East Legon.

Ernestina supervised the construction and managed the funds remitted by Vince. Upon completion, she relocated from Dansoman to East Legon in 2017 at Vince’s request.

Evidence before the Court showed that Vince presented Ernestina with a ring, publicly acknowledged himself as her “in-law” during her father’s funeral, wrote a tribute, donated money, and participated fully in the rites.

The parties cohabited as a couple until Vince terminated the relationship, allegedly expressing a preference for an unemployed woman who could take care of him.

Following the breakdown, Vince sought to recover possession of the apartment, contending that Ernestina was a mere licensee whose permission to remain had been revoked.

Although he admitted giving the ring, Vince insisted it was only to “ward off male attention”, denying any binding promise of marriage.

Ernestina countered that the ring symbolised a firm commitment, and that she had relied on repeated assurances of marriage by rejecting other suitors for 11 years, supervising construction works, surrendering her residence, and offering domestic, emotional and psychological support.

In its determination, the Court found that the totality of the evidence established a serious and unequivocal promise to marry, describing Vince’s explanation regarding the ring as unconvincing.

It held that the ring, long-term cohabitation, financial interdependence, public acknowledgment as in-law, and Ernestina’s sacrifices cumulatively created a binding promise, the breach of which entitled her to damages.

The Court ruled that Ernestina’s contributions gave her a beneficial interest in the property, which equity must protect, although Vince retained legal ownership.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Vince’s claim for ejectment and entered judgment for Ernestina.

Justice Kwadam described the ruling as addressing an issue of significant social and legal importance, reflecting the lived realities of many modern relationships in which individuals invest years of labour, resources, and emotional commitment in reliance on promises of marriage.

She observed that although such promises are often informal, their breach can have far-reaching emotional and economic consequences.