Abstract: This article argues that Ghana’s Marriage Act, Cap 127, is archaic, discriminatory, jurisdictionally confused and a Trojan Horse for foreign values. Drawing on relevant sections of Cap 127 and Act 367, the 1992 Constitution, with case law including Coleman v. Shang and the presumption of advancement cases, it calls for repeal and re-enactment into a unified Ghanaian Family Act fit for a 24-hour economy.

Colonial Origin – Not Meant for us

According to the literature, the Marriage Ordinance of 1884 was enacted primarily for the colonial administrators.[1] It was not meant for the indigenous people of the Gold Coast. It was to cater for the Englishmen in Cape Coast, the Christian merchants in Accra, the colonial officers who wanted an English marriage. The indigenous people had their customary marriage.

Professor Zabel[2] gives an insight: – “[T]he initial impetus for its introduction came from the administrators in West and East Africa who merely wanted legislation which would get over shortcomings in the received English law, which in particular did not appear to cover marriages between non-Africans who were not English subjects.” [3]

As Ekow Daniels notes, the Ordinance did not expressly bar Africans from contracting English marriages.[4] Akoto[5]explains the colonial logic: the belief was that white “superiority” would naturally cause the English form to be preferred over so-called “primitive” customary law marriages.[6]

There is an old Akan proverb: you do not mend a leaking thatch by placing fresh straw on only one side.[7] Ghana’s Marriage Act, Cap 127 [1884-1985][8], is that leaking thatch. We have patched it for 140 years, but the rain still beats the children inside.

We call it the Marriage Act, but in substance it is the Gold Coast Marriage Ordinance of 1884 wearing a Ghanaian smock. The name changed, the colonial skeleton remained. If marriage is the foundation of family, then our foundation is built on timber infested with termites.

And when the thatch leaks, it leaks differently on different heads. That brings us to the first leak.

1.A Tale of Two Polygamies – And A Statute That Calls Muslims Mohammedans

Customary marriage and Mohammedan marriage are both potentially polygamous[9] – twin brothers from the same womb. Yet the law treats one as a prince and the other as a prisoner.

The registration of customary marriage is couched in permissive terms. Under section 1 of the Marriage Act (Cap 127), it is optional: “… a marriage contracted under customary law … may be registered in accordance with this Act.” It is a gentleman’s choice. No penal consequences attach – no one is charged in court or convicted for failing to register.

Turn to sections 23 & 24. Registration of Mohammedan marriage is compulsory. Section 23 provides: “A Mohammedan marriage celebrated … shall be registered in the manner provided by section 24.” Beyond its imperative language, the Act makes it an offence under section 32 for a person required to attend the registration to refuse, without good cause, to sign the register or certificate. In reality, as Bamba has disclosed, Muslims have little or no engagement with the formal legal system.[10]

Apart from registration of customary marriage being optional, it may be registered at any time – after 40 days, 20 months or even 10 years. On the contrary, Mohammedan marriage must be registered immediately or at least within one week of celebration.[11] This means that where a Mohammedan marriage is registered a day or two after a week, the marriage becomes invalid by law (section 27).[12]

In Jebeille & Anor. v. Ashkar & Anor.[13], a validly solemnized Muslim marriage by a licensed Mohammedan priest was registered after three weeks instead of the one week provided by law. The Court rejected the registration and held the marriage void.

Similarly, in the case of In re Registration of Marriage between Byrouthy and Akyere; Ex parte Ali[14], the marriage was celebrated in accordance with Islamic law, but was not registered. Despite the parties living as husband and wife for 34 years, Koranteng-Addow J. held that the non-registration within the statutory period of one week rendered the marriage invalid.

Is this not direct discrimination on the ground of religion contrary to Article 17 (2) of the 1992 Constitution which provides: “A person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, creed or social or economic status.”

It is doubtful whether Section 27 of Cap 127 can stand the test of constitutionality. We must ask ourselves over and over again why a man’s religion should determine whether he becomes a criminal for loving a woman.

But the deeper wound is epistemic. As one writer notes, Muslims do not call themselves “Mohammedans.” The very name “Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance” betrays that the drafters did not understand the Muslim religion and the Quran. Amina Ali Issaka[15] contends: “The fact that CAP 129 is titled Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance bears witness to the absence of any collaboration on the part of the lawmaker with the persons in respect of whom the law sought to apply (Muslims) which was a common phenomenon in the colonial era when CAP 129 was promulgated.”

Hence, she underscored that: “CAP 129, which predates Ghana has become a colonial lodestone around the neck of Muslims in Ghana, disenfranchising Muslims of legitimate rights that have been made available to all Ghanaians. The cry of the Ghanaian Muslim is for recognition that their way of life, molded from Islamic rites and practices, in itself is legitimate and does not need further validation through the secondary secular procedure.”

As Hiskett observed, the colonial civil service regarded Muslims as “aliens and a nuisance”[16] – there was no rationale for the introduction of the Ordinance except to bring Islamic marriage in line with civil marriage,[17] and without providing an accompanying Islamic court system.

The State concedes its own failure. The Memorandum to the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 111) acknowledges that Cap 129 “is hardly ever enforced” and its registration requirements “are probably not known to many Muslims,” with the existence and location of the registers even less known to Muslims and lawyers. As a result, the condition precedent for Islamic succession rarely obtains. The rules, the Memorandum adds, are overly complicated, and ought to be simplified.

In 2017 a draft Muslim Marriage and Divorce Bill was introduced. It is yet to be passed into law. Its Memorandum admits: – ‘it is quite clear that Cap 129 as it currently stands has limited incentives to encourage compliance.”[18]

Why no compliance? Empirical proof:

96. Professor Raymond Atuguba,[19] in a research conducted for the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) on the registration of Islamic marriages in Ghana’s pluralistic legal system revealed that 96.2% of Muslims who claimed to have married under Islamic law had not registered under Cap 129.
97. A recent disclosure by the Registrar General’s Department, according to Dr. Kwame Annor,[20] has “sent shockwaves through Ghanaian community” that nearly 80% of Islamic marriages in the country are not legally valid.
98. Dennis Adjei Dwomoh also finds that the State has neglected Muslims – district assemblies have no forms for Mohammedan marriage registration and no licensed Mohammedan priests, hence hardly any Muslim presently registers his or her marriage in Ghana.

On this, Amina Ali Issaka[21] agrees: “Licensed Muslim clerics are virtually non-existent since most Muslim clerics have not been licensed by the Registrar of Mohammedan Marriages due to ignorance of the requirement.”

1. Ekow Daniels observes: “The Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance has been honoured by its breach rather than its observance … registration centres do not stock the Marriage of Mohammedan Register and would either turn prospective registrants away or adapt Ordinance or customary marriage forms for this purpose.”[22]

When a law criminalises non-registration but provides no forms, no licensed priests, no courts, it is not law, it is a trap.

This reminds us of the days when a person married under the Ordinance was forbidden from making a customary oral nuncupative will, otherwise known as “Samansiw.” In both In Re Anaman[23] and Re Otoo (Deceased),[24] Francis Smith J. and Michelin Ag. CJ  respectively, (colonial judges), held that a person married under the Marriage Ordinance was incapable of making a customary law will.

It took the Court of Appeal in Coleman v. Shang[25] to reset the judicial economy by pronouncing that religion or a form of marriage could not determine a person’s capacity to make a customary will.

Coleman v. Shang reset the will; the Constitution reset the child.[26] Who will reset the marriage?

 

2. A Misleading Taxonomy: When Both Are Ordinance Marriages

With respect, the conventional categorisation into “Ordinance marriage” and “Mohammedan marriage” is historically misleading.

Both were creatures of Ordinance. One was created by the Marriage Ordinance of 1884 as Cap 127 and the other by the Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance of 1907 as Cap 129. Strictly speaking, both are ordinance marriages – one reflecting English Christian norms, the other attempting, however imperfectly, to regulate Islamic marriage.

To label one as the Ordinance marriage and the other as Mohammedan marriage obscures their common colonial legislative pedigree and invents a hierarchy where none should exist. In law, both are Ordinance marriages. In fact, the State has unintentionally elevated one Ordinance over another. The Marriage Act renames the original Ordinance marriage under Part 3 of the Marriage Act as “Christian and Other Marriages”, but its old name continues to deceive. A more accurate taxonomy for a decolonized Family Act would be: Civil Marriage, Customary Marriage and Islamic Marriage, all under one statute, with equal dignity.

3. Criminalising Divorce & Customary Safety Net

Can Law Force Love? The discrimination against Mohammedan marriage continues at exit. Section 25 demands registration of Mohammedan divorce: “A Mohammedan divorce … shall be registered in the manner provided by section 26.”

This is legal fiction at its most cruel. A husband pronounces talaq, the wife completes her iddat, families intervene, and she remarries. But because no one trekked to the District Assembly to register or the one who visited the office to register went after one month of the divorce, the law says she is still his wife. Even worse, the non-registration of the divorce within the statutory period has also been criminalised under section 32.

Will the police be sent to drag her back to a marriage Islam has dissolved? The law cannot use a court order as an aphrodisiac. You cannot compel cohabitation by statute when love has evaporated into thin air. It is like ordering the Volta River to flow uphill.

The practice of the courts: when a Mohammedan marriage fails for non-registration, it may be treated as a customary marriage. Courts save the marriage by re-labelling it – another proof that the Mohammedan law is not working.[27]

 

4. A Law Without a Database

We still refer to “Ordinance Marriage.” Legally, there is no Ordinance. The Gold Coast Marriage Ordinance 1884 was codified into Cap 127 in 2005 by the Statute Law Revision Commissioner pursuant to Section 2 of the Laws of Ghana (Revised Edition) Act, 1998 (Act 562). To speak of Ordinance marriage in 2026 is anachronistic.[28] Cap 127 has codified all three marriages.

More troubling, the new Marriages Act creates no central database for the public to easily access. It does not link to customary marriages nor to itself. A man can contract an Ordinance marriage in Accra under Part 3 on Saturday, travel to his village on Sunday and marry another woman customarily under Part 1, and no computer will blink. On Monday he marries a third in Kumasi. Our law, which preaches monogamy for Ordinance marriage, has created a perfect factory for bigamy.

We punish the man for bigamy under section 262 of Act 29, but we gave him the tools to commit it by refusing to build a marriage register that links Accra, Kumasi and the village. We are like a bank that prints cheque books without a ledger and then jails the customer for overdraft.

What is the point of registration if registration cannot prevent fraud?

5. A Marriage That Changes Nothing, A Registration That Protects Nothing

Ask any practitioner: what does registration of customary marriage add? Under the law, it adds virtually nothing. It does not stop the man from marrying another woman. It does not confer validity, non-registration does not invalidate the marriage. Property rights remain the same.

Its relevance basically lives in history. The Customary Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Law, 1985 (PNDCL 112) was enacted to encourage the registration of customary marriage, so the couple could benefit from the changes in the law introduced by the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111). However, policy makers soon realised that most women were ignorant of the law, and this resulted in their disentitlement of the estate of their deceased spouses. Influenced by these considerations, the legislature took action – by making the registration under customary law optional.[29] This incidence typifies the limits of law in changing human behaviour as couples saw themselves as married with or without registration.

The customary law registration is now a certificate without substance – a receipt for a debt that never existed.[30] No wonder less than 20% register.[31]

Writing on the subject, David Yaw Danquah[32] posits: “There is no significant effect on the Registration of customary marriage because the registration itself does not confer legitimacy on the marriage.”

More fundamentally, the Act is silent on the most important question in modern marriage: property. Who owns what when love ends? Cap 127 says nothing about matrimonial property. It leaves spouses naked.

So what do judges do? They fill the vacuum with equity. They invent doctrines of “substantial contribution” and “joint acquisition” case by case.[33] Justice is now by lottery, not by statute. The wife who contributed 30 years of trading to build a house depends on which judge she meets. That is not law; that is gambling with lives.

 

6. The Fallacy of Three: Judicial Marriages and Posthumous Wives

We were taught that there are three types of marriage in Ghana – Ordinance, Customary and Mohammedan. That is now a classroom fallacy.

The debate is anchored on Section 31 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which provides:

“31 (1) A marriage which has been celebrated before witnesses is presumed to be valid … (3) This section applies both to monogamous and polygamous marriages.

On a strict reading, as argued by Justice Brobbey[34] and others,[35] only a marriage celebrated in compliance with a statute can be valid – any decision recognising a marriage by conduct alone is per incuriam and not good law.

The courts have departed from that strict view. Section 31 is inclusionary, not exclusionary; the current trend is to recognise marriage based on reputation, cohabitation and holding out as husband and wife.

This is what this paper calls Judicial or Posthumous Marriage – a marriage manufactured by the judgments of the court after the death of a partner, to save a widow from destitution where no formal rites were concluded.

1. Nana Ama Twumasi v. Brenya Akosua Twumasi & Anor.[36]: the family denied any customary marriage, claiming exhibition of the appellant as widow in the obituary notice and funeral was only to avoid shame – to show the deceased, who was a professor, did not die a bachelor. The Court of Appeal, per Kyei Baffour J.A. held that very public acknowledgment as a married spouse was crucial – she was a customary wife after 2003 till death.

1. Grace Adu & Dzigbordi Egbenya v. Martin Anaglate & Others[37]: Deceased, a medical doctor, presented two schnapps and money to the 1^st Plaintiff’s family. No family member attended with him. After his death, the family described the drinks as “nkwasiabuo nsa” – casual drinks, not marriage drinks. The court still inferred a valid customary marriage from conduct and receipt of drinks.

1. Similarly, in Paa Kow v. Abigail Adjetey & 2 Ors,[38] obituary notice and funeral rites were held as proof of marriage despite the absence of formal customary rites.

1. Fidaws Moro & Another v. Emelia Ayebio & Others[39]; Juliana Essie Dugbley v. Madam Doris Eugenia Badu[40]; Cecilia Osafo Adjei and Another v. Hannah Ackah Blah and Another;[41] Mama Avesi & III Others v. Joana De-Graft Johnson,[42] and Irene Gorleku v. Justice Pobee & Another,[43] are all cases where the strict elements of customary marriage were not proved, but the Courts posthumously recognised that there was a marriage.

Courts today, confronted with a woman who lived with a man for 20 years, bore his children, farmed his cocoa, but without full customary rites, declare her a wife after his death to save her from destitution. What is that? It is not customary marriage as our fathers knew it.

It is a judicial marriage or posthumous marriage – a fourth category manufactured by the courts to do justice where the statute has failed. When judges must create marriages in the mortuary, the legislature must wake up in the chapel.

7. Love on Curfew: 8am to 6pm in a 24-Hour Economy

Section 62 (2) says the “Ordinance marriage” must be celebrated between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm. The provision is couched in imperative terms. In an era of 24-hour economy policy,[44] we insist love must close at 6.00pm.

If two doctors on night shift want to marry at 8pm after saving lives, their marriage is void. Does love keep office hours? This provision belongs to the era when women in America were forbidden from working on a night shift at a time when Coverture[45] was prevalent. India’s Factories Act of 1948 made it illegal for a woman to work in a factory between 7.00 pm and 6.00 am to “protect” them. The world has moved on. Our law still carries a lantern in daylight.

8. Punishing the Couple for the Sins of the Pastor

Under Sections 40 and 64, a marriage can only be celebrated validly in a “licensed place.” A marriage celebrated at an unlicensed place is thus void.

A couple goes to their big charismatic church, 500 guests, licensed minister, white gowns. Unknown to them, the church’s licence was cancelled the previous month in the Gazette.[46] The law does not even make provision for the notice of the withdrawal of the licence to be pasted at the church premises. Ten years later, they discover they were never married.

Why kill the patient because the nurse forgot to renew her licence? The law should sanction the church, not behead the couple. How many Ghanaians even know what a “licensed place” is? We have criminalised innocence.

9. No Pause Button, No Future Thinking

Our law knows only two states: married or divorced. There is no place for judicial separation. No pause button. Judicial separation was part of our laws prior to the enactment of the Matrimonial Causes Act in 1971.[47] It has now ceased to be part of Ghanaian law.

Modern families need space to breathe, to go for counselling, to patch a quarrel. Our law says either suffer together or divorce forever. It is not interested in a temporary or indefinite separation that could lead to a possible reconciliation after some break.

It also knows nothing about celibacy, assisted reproduction, surrogacy, or minimum marriageable age. The Children’s Act says 18,[48] but Cap 127 still whispers 16[49] and even 21[50] with consent.. In some districts, a 15-year-old girl is given out as a customary wife, and the police say “it is culture.” A law that cannot define who a child is cannot protect a child.[51]

And what about property? Couples today want prenuptial agreements. They want to say: “What I owned before, remains mine.” Our law is silent. So lawyers draft foreign prenups and pray the court will respect them. A modern Marriage Act must provide for prenups as a shield, not leave them as contraband smuggled from America.

10. Automatic Bad Blood

Section 38 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971, Act 367, automatically revokes a will made for a spouse after divorce.

Does divorce automatically mean enmity? Many divorced couples remain friends and co-parents. A man may still want the mother of his children to have his house. Why should the law impose bad blood by force? Divorce should not automatically mean enmity. Let the testator decide whether to revoke, not the statute.

11. The Jurisdictional Confusion: District Court and the 24-Hour Justice

The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367) defines “Court” in respect of marriage dissolution and other matrimonial causes as either the High Court or the Circuit Court.[52] Based on that Bright Mensah J., as he then was, in the Republic v. The District Court, Sekondi, Ex Parte Martin Offei (Sally Offei, Interested Party)[53], applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, held that the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with divorce or other matrimonial causes.

Meanwhile, section 47 (1) (f) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459),[54] as amended, expressly confers jurisdiction on District Courts in matrimonial causes. The Court of Appeal in the Republic v. District Magistrate Court, Apam and Bondzie Atta Quaye; Ex Parte Mrs. Victoria Quaye[55], held that the District Court was vested with power to dissolve marriages.

Two statutes, two answers, both preceded the 2005 re-enactment of Cap 127. It was thought that Cap 127 would resolve the confusion, but it did not. In a 24-hour economy where District Courts may sit day and night at district level, this confusion, without prejudice to the Courts’ prior decision, denies access to justice. A new Family Act must clearly vest District Courts with jurisdiction in all matrimonial causes and allow night sittings to reduce backlog, should the policy take effect within the judicial circles.

 

12. The English Litmus Test: Section 74 (1) (a) and the Betrayal of Local Content

This is the gravest. Section 74 (1) (a) provides: “A marriage may be lawfully celebrated under this Part between a man and the sister or niece of the deceased wife, but a marriage is not valid, (a) which if celebrated in England, would be void on the ground of kindred or affinity.”

In some Ghanaian communities, particularly under the Akan matrilineal system of inheritance, a man may marry his deceased wife’s niece or his nephew’s daughter to keep children and property within the abusua. In northern and Volta communities – levirate – brother stepping in as husband of widow upon demise – is not an abuse, but social security where the State provides none. The brother is the widow’s pension.

What does section 74 (1) (a) say? Even if our custom allows it, it is invalid if England says it is void for kindred or affinity.

In 2026, almost seven decades after Independence, the validity of a marriage in Atebubu is still tested by whether it would be valid in London. It is like asking the Queen whether you can marry your cousin in Aburi. This is nothing but legal mental slavery. Section 74 (1) (a) says customary law is valid only if England approves it.

We have invited customary law into the courtroom but told it to speak English, dress English, and think English.

Article 11 of the 1992 Constitution recognises customary law as a source of law. Article 26 (1) further guarantees cultural and traditional rights subject only to the Constitution, not English law.

The irony is that our Supreme Court has successfully domesticated English common law. The English presumption of advancement applied only to property acquired by fathers for their children.[56] Our Supreme Court, in the case of Hannah Kwarteng (Substituted by Kwadwo Oppong) v. Adwoa Tiwaa & Anor. (Substituted by Diana Mensah)[57], expanded it to include property acquired by uncles for nephews in accordance with Akan matrilineal custom, because in the Akan system an uncle is like a father. The Apex Court reaffirmed its decision in David Okae Ansah & Anor. v. Comfort Ansah.[58]

If the courts can develop common law to suit local conditions under Article 11 (2) of the Constitution, why has Parliament failed to “Ghanaianise” Cap 127? Why does Section 74 (1) (a) still make England our marriage judge?

13. The Trojan Horse: Banning The Horse After It Has Bolted

Attempts to legislate to ban LGBTQ activities via the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025 appear as though the animal has already left the door. Cap 127 itself opened the door 140 years ago. Section 74 (1) (a) outsources validity to England.

In 2013, England moved – the UK Parliament passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, making same-sex marriage valid in England and Wales. If Cap 127 says “if England says void, Ghana says void”, the contrapositive is “if England says valid, Ghana says valid”. If a same-sex marriage would be valid in England today, on what basis does Cap 127 declare it void in Ghana when its own test is English law?

We are trying to lock the front door with the Family Values Bill, while the back door – Cap 127, s74(1) (a) – has been wide open since 1884. You cannot decolonise marriage by adding a new padlock to a colonial gate whose key is still kept in Westminster. You must pull down the gate.

Conclusion – The Time Bomb Has Already Exploded – Ask Daddy Lumba

We are not sitting on a time bomb. The bomb has already exploded. Go to Kumasi. When the highlife legend Charles Kwadwo Fosu – Daddy Lumba – died on 26^th July, 2025, Ghana did not just lose a voice. Ghana saw its marriage law collapse live on television.

Two women claimed to be the sole widow. Akosua Serwaa Fosuh claimed a customary marriage since 1991 and a civil marriage in Bornheim, Germany, in 2004. Priscilla Ofori Atta – Odo Broni claimed a customary marriage of 15 years with six children.

The family head said Serwaa had dissolved her marriage by “returning the head drinks” – a customary divorce. Serwaa said she never did.

On 28^th November, 2025, the Kumasi High Court, per Justice Dorinda Smith Arthur, had to do what Cap 127 failed to do – clean up the mess. Public interest was high. Did we need 74 pages of judgment and 4 months of injunction over a funeral that should have taken two weeks? Because Cap 127 has:

• No central database – so a man can have a 1991 customary marriage, a 2004 German civil marriage, and a 15-year cohabitation, and no register links them.

• No clarity on dissolution – is “returning head drinks” a divorce under the law? Cap 127 is silent.

• No clear definition on validity of Customary Registration – Registration adds nothing, non-registration takes nothing away. So what proves marriage? Photos? Obituary? Tribute? The Photoshop era?

• This is the Property Time Bomb – two widows, one estate, both lawful, because the law never forced registration into one biometric database.

• This is the Sovereignty Bomb – to prove a Ghanaian is a widow, we needed a notary in Bornheim, certified translations, font analysis of a German certificate. We outsourced proof of Ghanaian marriage to Germany.

If this could happen to the most famous musician in Ghana, with lawyers and international documents, what happens to the trotro driver in Techiman with two customary marriages and no receipts?

Daddy Lumba’s funeral was delayed from July to 13^th December, 2025 – almost five months – because of this law. The public interest was not gossip. It was every Ghanaian family seeing its own future. If Lumba’s family can fight like this, what will happen to us?

Time bombs do not wait. The earlier we act, the better.

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill tries to lock the front door. But as long as Section 74 (1) (a) makes England the yardstick of validity, and as long as photos and obituary notices determine marriages, the animal has already left the door. Cap 127 is the open door.

Ghana does not need an amendment. Ghana needs funeral and a christening – repeal Cap 127 and enact a Ghanaian Family Act for a 24-hour economy that:

1. Equalises customary and Mohammedan registration and de-criminalises love;
2. Creates a single, digital, biometric-linked marriage database easily accessible to the general public;

iii. Provides for matrimonial property and recognises prenuptial agreements;

1. Provides for judicial separation, assisted reproduction and clearly criminalises child marriage;
2. Validates substance over form – punish the negligent pastor, not the innocent couple.
3. Codifies dissolution of customary marriage – return of drinks plus family tribunal certificate.

vii. Vests District Courts with 24-hour divorce and separation jurisdiction.

Let us bury Cap 127 before it buries more funerals. Let us decolonize marriage before marriage decolonises us.

The gate of marriage must be widened. The old thatch must go!

[1] Shirley Zabel, ‘The legislative History of the Gold Coast and Nigeria Marriage Ordinances: 1’ (1969) 13 (2) J Afr L., 64. Zabel notes it took five years of drafting before it was finalized.

[2] H.F. Morris, “The Development of Statutory Marriage in Twentieth Century British Colonial Africa.” (1979).

[3] Professor Zabel in tracing the genesis of the Gold Coast/Lagos Marriage Ordinance of 1884 revealed: “The story is a complex one, to which full justice cannot be done in the scope of a single article, … the legislation was not imposed upon the territories as part of any formulated policy for the introduction of English-based marriage law to replace the indigenous customary law, nor was it brought in at the request of the missionaries, in their desire to eradicate polygamy; indeed in some territories missionaries were highly critical of its introduction, fearing that it would deter Africans from Christian marriage.”

[4] WC Ekow Daniels, ‘Marital Family Law and Social Policy’ in WC Ekow Daniels and Gordon Woodman (eds), Essays in Ghanaian Law 1876-1976 (Ghana Publishing Corporation 1976).

[5] Augustina Akoto, “Research Handbook on Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law.’ (Chapter 7: ‘Marriage, the Law and Pluralism in Ghana). Published on 21^st May, 2024 by Edward Elgar Publishing.

[6] As observed in Ackah v. Arinta [1893] Sar FLR 99.

[7] Akan proverb: Wonsiesie atifi a eguo wo mfa foforo mfa nsi baako so.

[8] Marriage Act, Cap 127 (1951 Rev.) as revised in 2005.

[9] While there is no specific limit to the number of wives a man can marry under customary marriage, in respect of Mohammedan marriage, there is a limit and it is four.

[10] Abdul B. Aziz Bamba, ‘Accommodating Muslim Family Law in Ghana: Strategies and Challenges’ in Henrietta J.A.N. Mensa-Bonsu et al. (eds) Ghana Law Since Independence, History, Development and Prospects (Black Mask 2007), JND Anderson, ‘Colonial Law in Tropical Africa: The Conflict Between English, Islamic and Customary Law’ (1960) 35 (4) Ind LJ 433 (n. 65).

[11] See section 24 (1).

[12] It may only take an application to the High Court, spelling out the reasons for the delay, to validate a Mohammedan marriage that was not registered within a week after its celebration as provided under section 24 (10) and (11).

[13] [1977] 1 GLR 458, H.C.

[14] [1980] GLR 872.

[15] Amina Ali Issaka (Senior Associate, Legal Link), “The Utility of Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance Under the Current Ghanaian Legal Dispensation”, Ghana Law Hub, 26^th July, 2020.

[16] See Augustina Akoto supra.

[17] Mervyn Hiskett, ‘Commissioner of Police v. Musa Kommanda and Aspects of the Working of the Gold Coast Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance.’ [1976] 20 (2) J. Afr L. 127.

[18] Augustina Akoto supra.

[19] Atuguba, Raymond A. (2003) Paper Presented At A Workshop Organised By The Family Law Focal Area Of The GTZ On The Registration Of Islamic Marriages In Ghana’s Plural Legal System – Challenges And Volta Region On The 20^th Of May 2003. Available Online.

[20] Dr. Kwame Annor, “Registration of Mohammedan Marriages in Ghana: Time for a Reform”. 23^rd November, 2025.

[21] Amina Ali Issaka (Senior Associate, Legal Link), “The Utility of Marriage of Mohammedans Ordinance Under the Current Ghanaian Legal Dispensation”, Ghana Law Hub, 26^th July, 2020.

[22] Daniels, W.C. Ekow, “Towards Integration Of Laws Relating To Husband And Wife In Ghana.” University of Ghana Law Journal (Vol. 11, 1965) P. 37.

[23] (1894) Sar. F.C.L. 221.

[24] (Div. Ct (1926-29).

[25] [1959] GLR 390, C.A.

[26] See Article 28 (1) (b). The English law did not recognise children born outside wedlock as legitimate.

[27] See Kwakye v. Tuba & Ors. [1961] GLR 720, 725.

[28] Laws of Ghana (Revised Edition) Act, 1998 (Act 562), ss. 2 and 3; Revised Edition of the Laws of Ghana (2005).

[29] Customary Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Amendment Law, 1991 (P.N.D.C.L. 263), s. 2 (a).

[30] It may however serve as proof of the marriage.

[31] Kweku Zurek, ‘80% of marriages unregistered in Ghana – 2021 census’ Graphic Online(2 March, 2022). According to Lawyer Dennis Adjei Dwomoh, per the Ghana Statistical Service report, 8.6 million Ghanaians are married but only 1.6 million have registered their marriages.

[32] David Yaw Danquah, ‘The Effects of Registration of Customary Marriage in Ghana’ (November 14, 2023).

[33] See cases such as Mensah v. Mensah [2012] 1 SCGLR 391; Quartson v. Quartson [2012] 2 SCGLR 1077; Arthur v. Arthur (No. 1) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 543.

[34] Mavis Ekua Enyamah Kwainoe, ‘Marriage and Divorce: Perspective from the Bench’ Wisconsin Journal of Arts and Sciences (ISSN – L): 2026-5166.

[35] See for instance, J. Ofori Boateng, ‘The Ghana Law of Evidence.’ (1993), pp. 31-32.

[36] Suit No. H1/127/2022, dated 10^th November 2022, C.A., unreported.

[37] Suit No. GJ/159/2015, dated 5^th April 2015, H.C., unreported.

[38] Suit No. H1/13/2022, dated 26^th March, 2025, C.A., Unreported.

[39] Suit No. PA/62/2015, dated 12^th April, 2024, H.C., unreported.

[40] Suit No. BFA/91/2004, dated 25^th August 2009,

[41] Civil App. No. H1/13/19, dated 18^th December 2019, C.A., unreported.

[42] Suit No. H1/15/2004, dated 12^th February 2004, C.A., unreported.

[43] (2012) 42 GMJ 573.

[44] Government of Ghana 24-Hour Economy Policy, 2025.

[45] Coverture was a legal concept which ensured that upon marriage a woman lost her identity, lost rights and lived under the shadows of her husband’s identity. For more information about Coverture, read Chapter 17 of my Contemporary and Evolving Issues in Civil Procedure and Litigation.

[46] See Section 40 (1).

[47] See Knudsen v. Knudsen [1976] 1 GLR 204, C.A.

[48] See Section 14 (2).

[49] The Common and the Canon law in Medieval times set the marriageable age in England to 12 for girls and 14 for boys, until in 1929 when it was increased to 16 for both sexes, but has since been raised to 18 by the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 (in force from 27 February 2023).

[50] See Section 59.

[51] It can only rely on the Children’s Act, which is not exhaustive.

[52] See Section 43.

[53] Suit No. E9/28/18, dated 9^th April, 2018, H.C., Sekondi, Unreported.

[54] See also Order 32 Rule 1 (1) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (C.I. 59).

[55] Civil App. No. H1/55/2017, dated 5^th December, 2017, C.A., Cape Coast, Unreported.

[56] Dyer v. Dyer [1788].

[57] Suit No. J4/01/2017, dated 14^th November, 2017, S.C., Unreported.

[58] Civil App. No. J4/26/2022, dated 20^th July, 2022, S.C., Unreported.