Gloria Lamptey and football star Nii Odartey Lamptey were married on May 28, 1994 in accordance with Ghana Marriage Ordinance. In September 2013, Gloria applied to the High Court to have the marriage annulled.
She told the court the marriage had broken down beyond repair due to Mr Lamptey’s violent behaviour. She accused him of subjecting her and her children to severe emotional and psychological abuse.
Mr Lamptey was also accused of having extramarital affairs. Gloria Lamptey told the court during the marriage; that she was responsible for the acquisition of various properties that footballers wanted to acquire. She added she can no longer live with the retired footballer because he keeps making false accusations of adultery.
She therefore asked the court to order Mr Lamptey to pay her a total of GH¢114,096, which consisted of meal allowances, utility bills, car maintenance and outstanding allowances to run the Glow Lamp International School. She also wanted a 500,000 yen lump sum payment, fair distribution of different properties, and cash in different bank accounts.
The retired footballer agreed the marriage was broken up pending reconciliation in response to the divorce filing. However, he blamed Gloria Lamptey’s alleged infidelity. He backed up his claims with a DNA paternity test report, which confirmed he was not the father of all three children of the marriage.
He also called for the marriage to be dissolved.
On June 14, 2017, the High Court found that the marriage had indeed broken down beyond repair. It explained that the three children from the marriage were not children of Mr Lamptey. The court awarded Gloria Lampety 200,000 yen in financial compensation, a house in Dome and two vehicles. The marital home, which has recently become the subject of media reports, was handed over to Mr Lamptey.
Gloria Lamptey disagreed with the decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. She asked the Court of Appeals to rule that she did not commit adultery in relation to conceiving the children of the marriage and that the footballer knew 21 years ago and not in 2013 that the children of the marriage were not his biological children.
She also wanted the court to take a second look at the distribution of wealth. However, the Court of Appeal disagreed and dismissed the appeal. The court said it found no error in how the High Court allocated the plots. It found that said qualities had been fairly shared. The court acknowledged that Gloria Lamptey’s alleged adultery is not a factor to be considered in determining equity in the case.
However, the Court found that due account must be taken of the fact that Mr Lamptey is not the biological father of the petitioner’s three children and has spent vast sums of money on them over the 21 years of their marriage; Provision of food, shelter and education. They accompanied him as he worked and traveled to Holland, Belgium, Italy and the UK and attended private schools.
As to whether Gloria had committed adultery, the court found that “during cross-examination the applicant (Gloria) insists that the children were conceived “by a process other than the sexual intercourse by the accused.”
However, she refuses to answer any further questions about this process, claiming that she does not wish to discuss the children’s paternity as it is a sensitive subject. There is therefore no evidence in the records to contradict the fact that the children were conceived through adultery. Surely the petitioner should have known the consequences of not speaking about how the children were conceived if she had not in fact committed adultery.
The DNA test results, Appendix “1”, are conclusive evidence that the three children are not the defendant’s biological children. Respondent’s attorney rightly argues that the balance was tipped in Plaintiff’s favor to disprove the evidence, which she failed to do or denied. It is of no avail to the petitioner’s attorney to suggest that the learned trial judge should have determined the following points which she claims emerge from the evidence on file.”
The court concluded that it had examined the full record of the case and saw no reason to interfere with the High Court’s findings of fact.
Comments are closed.