During a hearing at the Family Court in Accra on June 2, the Petitioner requested maintenance orders pending appeal and sought additional directives restricting the children’s interaction with Hajia4Reall. The application also proposed reducing the periods during which the Respondent could have access to the children.
To support the request, the Petitioner submitted video evidence and referenced Hajia4Reall’s previous incarceration, arguing that her association with the children may not serve their best interests. The Petitioner further alleged that the children’s social media behaviour had been negatively influenced by their environment while staying with the Respondent.
Court filings also highlighted a video involving one of the children, which the Petitioner claimed raised concerns about the child’s welfare and supervision. According to the documents, the Respondent acknowledged concerns after the matter was brought to his attention.
The Petitioner additionally argued that the Respondent’s frequent absence during the children’s visits resulted in them spending considerable time with Hajia4Reall and her child, who reportedly live with him.
The Respondent, represented by lawyer Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu, opposed the application. He argued that the requested orders would directly affect Hajia4Reall, who is not a party to the case and had not been given an opportunity to present her side. He maintained that granting such orders could violate principles of natural justice.
Counsel also contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested orders after judgment had already been delivered and questioned whether the reliefs sought were legally available under the circumstances.
However, counsel for the Petitioner, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that provisions under Order 65 Rule 23(3) and (4) of C.I. 47, together with the Matrimonial Causes Act, empower the court to make post-judgment orders. He added that the Petitioner would not object if Hajia4Reall were served with the application and allowed to participate in the proceedings.
Regarding the video evidence, the Respondent’s legal team stated that they would address its contents after the court had reviewed the material.
Following submissions from both parties, the court decided to first examine the video evidence before making any ruling. The case was subsequently adjourned to June 26, 2026, when the court is expected to review the footage, hear any further arguments arising from it, and consider the Petitioner’s pending injunction application.
Source: citinews
