An Accra Circuit Court has ordered a businessman to pay GH₵200,000 in damages after bringing to an end an 11-year relationship founded on a promise of marriage, in a case that has raised significant questions about property rights and emotional loss arising from failed engagements
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.
The case was presided over by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, a High Court Judge sitting with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court Judge. The Court awarded Ernestina GHS50,000 as general damages and GHS150,000 as compensation for the breach.
In addition, Vince was ordered to pay interest at prevailing commercial bank rates on the amount from February 16, 2026. The Court also awarded costs of GH₵20,000 in favour of Ernestina.
The Court further declared that Ernestina has 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, as Vince had laid no claim to them.
It also directed both parties to take the 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, who sought 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 relationship began 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 of the project, she relocated from Dansoman to East Legon in 2017 at Vince’s request.
Evidence before the Court indicated that Vince presented Ernestina with a ring, publicly acknowledged himself as her “in-law” during her father’s funeral, wrote a tribute, made a donation, and fully participated in the funeral rites.
The couple cohabited until Vince terminated the relationship, allegedly stating that he preferred an unemployed woman who could take care of him.
Following the breakdown, Vince sought to recover possession of the apartment, arguing that Ernestina was a mere licensee whose permission to occupy the property had been revoked.
Although he admitted giving her the ring, Vince maintained that it was only to “ward off male attention”, denying that it amounted to a binding promise of marriage.
Ernestina, however, contended 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 providing 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, the long-term cohabitation, financial interdependence, public acknowledgement as an in-law, and Ernestina’s sacrifices cumulatively created a binding promise, the breach of which entitled her to damages.
The Court further 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.
