Accra Court awards woman GH¢200,000 for breach of promise to marry
An Accra Circuit Court has directed a businessman to pay GH¢200,000 in damages after ending an 11-year relationship built on a promise of marriage, in a case that has sparked debate over property rights and emotional harm resulting from broken engagements.
The court ruled in favour of Ms Ernestina Torgbor on her counterclaim for breach of promise to marry against Mr Vince Kontoh, who had originally filed the suit.
The case was heard by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, a High Court judge sitting additionally as a Circuit Court judge. The court awarded Ernestina GH¢50,000 in general damages and GH¢150,000 as compensation for the breach. Vince was also ordered to pay interest at prevailing commercial bank rates from February 16, 2026, along with GH¢20,000 in legal costs.
Additionally, the court declared that Ernestina holds a beneficial interest in a two-bedroom apartment at East Legon in Accra. She was permitted to retain possession of a Toyota RAV4 and an industrial blender, as Vince did not claim ownership of them. The court further instructed both parties to formalise Ernestina’s interest in a six-unit, two-bedroom apartment complex at East Legon.
The decision followed a writ filed by Vince seeking to evict Ernestina after ending their relationship. In response, she challenged the eviction and filed a counterclaim for breach of promise to marry.
The court heard that the relationship began in 2013 while Vince lived abroad and Ernestina remained in Ghana. Over the years, Vince funded the purchase of industrial equipment and a vehicle, supported Ernestina’s children’s education, and financed the construction of the six-unit apartment building at East Legon. Ernestina oversaw the project and managed the funds he sent. After its completion, she moved from Dansoman to East Legon in 2017 at his request.
Evidence presented showed that Vince gave Ernestina a ring, referred to himself publicly as her “in-law” during her father’s funeral, delivered a tribute, made a donation, and actively participated in funeral rites. The couple lived together until Vince reportedly ended the relationship, allegedly stating that he preferred to be with an unemployed woman who could care for him.
Following the split, Vince sought to reclaim the apartment, arguing that Ernestina was merely permitted to stay there and that her right to occupy the property had been withdrawn.
Although he acknowledged giving her the ring, Vince claimed it was intended only to deter other men and did not constitute a formal promise of marriage. Ernestina, however, maintained that the ring represented a firm commitment. She told the court she had relied on repeated assurances of marriage for 11 years, turning down other suitors, supervising construction projects, leaving her former residence, and providing domestic, emotional, and psychological support.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the evidence demonstrated a clear and serious promise to marry, dismissing Vince’s explanation about the ring as unpersuasive. It held that the ring, long-term cohabitation, shared financial responsibilities, public recognition as an in-law, and Ernestina’s sacrifices collectively established a binding promise, the breach of which warranted compensation.
The court further ruled that Ernestina’s contributions gave her a beneficial interest in the property, which equity must safeguard, even though Vince retained legal title. As a result, Vince’s eviction claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered in Ernestina’s favour.
Justice Kwadam described the ruling as addressing an issue of considerable social and legal relevance, noting that many modern relationships involve significant investments of time, resources, and emotional commitment based on promises of marriage.
She added that while such promises are often informal, breaking them can lead to serious emotional and financial consequences.
About The Author
