Court CONSIDERS Request to Limit Hajia4Reall’s Contact with Children in RNAQ Divorce Case

During the hearing, the court listened to arguments relating to a motion for maintenance orders pending appeal. As part of the application, the Petitioner requested that the court limit the children’s interaction with Hajia4Reall and reduce the amount of time they spend with their father. The Petitioner supported the application with video evidence and referenced Hajia4Reall’s past incarceration, arguing that her association with the children may not serve their best interests. The application also alleged that the children’s social media behaviour had been negatively affected by their environment while under the Respondent’s care. Court documents further cited a video involving one of the children, which the Petitioner claimed raised concerns about the child’s welfare and supervision. According to the filing, the issue was discussed with the Respondent, who reportedly acknowledged concerns about the child’s conduct. The Petitioner additionally argued that due to the Respondent’s alleged unavailability during visitation periods, the children spent considerable time with Hajia4Reall and her child, who are said to reside with him. However, the Respondent, through his lawyer Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu, strongly opposed the application. Counsel argued that the orders being sought would directly affect Hajia4Reall despite her not being a party to the case and not having the opportunity to defend herself. He maintained that granting such orders without hearing from her could violate principles of natural justice. He also questioned whether the court had the authority to grant the requested reliefs after judgment had already been delivered. Counsel for the Petitioner, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed, arguing 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 when necessary. He further indicated that the Petitioner would not object if the court decided to serve Hajia4Reall with the application and allow her to participate in the proceedings. Regarding the video evidence, counsel for the Respondent stated that they would address its contents after the court had reviewed the material. Following submissions from both sides, the court announced that it would first examine the video evidence before making any decisions on the application. The case was subsequently adjourned to June 26, 2026, when the court is expected to view the video evidence, hear any additional arguments arising from it, and consider the Petitioner’s pending motion for injunction.