An Accra Circuit Court has ordered a businessman to pay a total of GH¢200,000 in damages to a woman for breaching a promise to marry her after an 11-year relationship, while also resolving a protracted property dispute between the pair.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sedinam Awo Kwadam, a High Court Judge sitting with additional responsibility as a Circuit Court Judge. The Court ruled in favour of Ernestina Torgbor on her counterclaim for breach of promise to marry against Vince Kontoh, who had earlier filed a suit seeking to eject her from a two-bedroom apartment at East Legon following the end of their relationship.
In its decision, the Court awarded Ernestina GH¢50,000 in general damages and GH¢150,000 in compensation for the breach. Vince was further directed to pay interest on the amount at prevailing commercial bank rates from February 16, 2026, as well as GH¢20,000 in legal costs.
Beyond the monetary award, the Court declared that Ernestina holds a beneficial interest in the East Legon apartment and ordered that she continue to use a Toyota RAV4 vehicle and an industrial blender, noting that Vince had not laid claim to those items.
The parties were also instructed to take steps to regularise her interest in a six-unit, two-bedroom apartment block at East Legon, a project financed during the relationship.
The dispute arose after Vince initiated legal action to remove Ernestina from the apartment, arguing that she was merely a licensee whose permission to occupy the property had been revoked. Although he admitted presenting her with a ring during the relationship, he contended that it was intended only to deter other men and did not amount to a binding promise of marriage.
However, the Court found otherwise. Evidence showed that the couple began their relationship in 2013 while Vince was living abroad and Ernestina was in Ghana.
During that period, Vince provided financial support for industrial equipment, a vehicle, Ernestina’s children’s education, and the construction of the apartment block. Ernestina supervised the construction works and managed the funds sent to her.
The Court also took into account evidence that Vince publicly referred to himself as Ernestina’s “in-law” during her father’s funeral, wrote a tribute, made a donation, and participated in funeral rites—actions the Court considered consistent with a serious marital commitment.
Ernestina told the Court she relied on repeated assurances of marriage, rejecting other suitors for over a decade, relocating from Dansoman to East Legon at Vince’s request, and providing domestic and emotional support throughout the relations
In its ruling, the Court described Vince’s explanation regarding the ring as unconvincing and held that the totality of the evidence including the presentation of the ring, long-term cohabitation, financial interdependence and public acknowledgment established a clear and unequivocal promise to marry. Its breach, the Court held, entitled Ernestina to damages.
The Court further determined that her contributions to the property development gave rise to a beneficial interest that equity must protect, even though Vince retains legal ownership. Consequently, his claim for ejectment was dismissed.
Justice Kwadam observed that the case underscored important social and legal issues, noting that many modern relationships involve significant emotional and financial investment based on promises of marriage band that the consequences of broken commitments can be both profound and far-reaching.
