This is a full account of former Black Stars player Nii Odartey Lampey’s story, which includes a prominent appearance by his ex-wife, which you probably did not know.
Gloria Lamptey married footballer Nii Odartey Lamptey on May 28, 1994, according to Ghana’s Marriage Ordinance.
Gloria filed an annulment petition with the High Court in September 2013.
She told the court that Mr Lamptey’s abusive behavior had irreversibly destroyed her marriage.
She accused him of causing her and her children severe emotional and psychological harm.
Mr Lamptey was also suspected of having extramarital affairs.
During the marriage, Gloria Lamptey told the court that she was in charge of acquiring a number of houses sought by footballers.
She also stated that she couldn’t live with the retired player because of his false accusations of adultery leveled against her.
She asked the court to order Mr Lamptey to pay her GH114,096 in compensation, which included food allowance, power bills, automobile maintenance, and unpaid wages from running Glow Lamp International School.
She also asked for a 500,000 lump sum payment, as well as an equal distribution of numerous real estate assets and funds in various bank accounts.
In response to the divorce petition, the retired footballer admitted that the marriage was irreparably damaged. He, on the other hand, attributed it to Gloria Lamptey’s alleged infidelity.
He supported his claims with a paternity test DNA report, which he claimed proved he was not the father of the marriage’s three children.
He also demanded that the marriage be declared null and void.
On June 14, 2017, the High Court ruled that the marriage was irreparable. It stated that the three children of the marriage were not Mr Lamptey’s children.
The court awarded Gloria Lampety a $200,000 monetary settlement, a home in Dome, and two automobiles. Mr Lamptey was given the marital home that has recently been the subject of media attention.
Gloria Lamptey, who was unhappy with the verdict, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal.
She requested that the Court of Appeal rule that she did not commit adultery in the conception of the marriage’s children and that the footballer was aware that the children were not his biological children. Not in 2013, but twenty-one years ago.
She also requested that the property distribution be reconsidered by the court. The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, ruled that the appeal should be denied.
The court stated that it found no flaws in the High Court’s division of the properties. It stated that the aforementioned properties had been fairly distributed.
The court acknowledged that Gloria Lamptey’s alleged adultery is not a factor to be considered in determining the case’s equities.
Despite this, the court ruled that the fact that Mr Lamptey is not the biological father of the Petitioner’s three children and has spent a significant amount of money on them over the course of their 21-year marriage, providing food, shelter, and education, must be taken into account.
They traveled with him as he worked and attended private schools in Holland, Belgium, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
During Gloria’s cross-examination, the court noted that “the Petitioner (Gloria) claims that the children were created “through a procedure other than sexual intercourse by the Respondent.”
She, on the other hand, refuses to answer any further questions about the process, claiming that discussing the paternity of the children is a sensitive subject.
As a result, there is no evidence to refute the fact that the children were born as a result of adultery on the record.
If the Petitioner did not commit adultery, she should have been aware of the consequences of her refusal to discuss the children’s conception.
Exhibit “1,” the DNA test results, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the three children are not the Respondent’s biological children. The Respondent’s counsel correctly claims that the Petitioner’s burden of proof was shifted to her to disprove the facts, which she failed or refused to do.
“Counsel for the Petitioner’s contention that the learned trial judge should have decided the following questions arising from the facts on record is without merit.”
After reviewing the entire record of proceedings, the court concluded that there was no reason to overturn the High Court’s factual findings.
