An Accra Circuit Court has directed a businessman in his 60s to pay GH¢200,000 to a woman after failing to fulfil a promise to marry her.
The court held that his refusal to honour the commitment resulted in emotional pain, social embarrassment and financial loss, underscoring that certain personal promises can carry legal consequences in Ghana.
The matter initially began as a suit seeking an ejectment order against the woman. However, the court ultimately determined that there had been a breach of promise to marry and imposed a constructive trust on a property located at East Legon.
The woman filed the civil action after their long-term relationship ended without marriage, despite repeated assurances from the businessman. She told the court that she had devoted years of her life, trust and financial resources to the relationship, believing it would lead to marriage.
She explained that she relied on his pledge in making major life decisions, personal sacrifices and integrating her future plans with his.
Presiding judge, Justice Sedinam Kwadam, ruled that the businessman should pay GH¢200,000 to compensate for the emotional, social and financial impact of the broken promise.
The amount comprises GH¢50,000 in general damages and GH¢150,000 in compensation. In addition, the court awarded GH¢20,000 in costs in her favour.
Under Ghana’s common-law principles, a serious promise to marry may be regarded as legally binding in certain circumstances. Where such a promise is proven to have been relied upon and its breach results in measurable harm, the court may grant damages.
The judge stressed that a commitment to marry is not a casual statement but a mutual understanding capable of influencing life choices, future planning and emotional stability.
The decision reaffirms that Ghanaian courts may grant compensation when a genuine promise of marriage is broken and significant reliance or hardship is established. It also reflects the evolving legal approach to personal relationships and contractual expectations between consenting adults.
The court further ruled that because the businessman did not specifically demand the return of a Toyota RAV4, the woman would retain use of the vehicle. The detailed reasoning behind the judgement is expected to be released on February 24.
Legal practitioners have advised that individuals should be mindful of the potential legal implications of promises made within intimate relationships and consider formal agreements before entering commitments that may carry legal consequences.