Former Ghana international, Baffour Gyan has given a detailed explanation of why his brother Asamoah Gyan won his legal tussle with his ex-wife, Gifty Gyan.....CONTINUE READING
The legal battle between Asamoah Gyan and Gifty Gyan, involving issues related to properties and their annulled marriage, has been resolved by the Accra High Court.
The court annulled the marriage based on Asamoah Gyan’s petition and other pieces of evidence presented during the case.
The court deemed Gifty’s early marriage in 2002 at the age of 17 as insufficient grounds for declaring the marriage void, upholding its validity.
However, as compensation to Gifty Gyan, the court awarded her a UK property, a gas station in Prampram, a 4-bedroom house in Spintex, which was purchased for her before their marriage in 2013, and two cars.
Additionally, a monthly maintenance fee of GH¢25,000 was granted to Gifty, while the request for alimony was denied.
Setting the record straight on Asempa FM, Baffour Gyan clarified that there was a misconception about the legal verdict. He highlighted that it was Gifty who had been previously married, and Asamoah Gyan had initiated the case to annul that marriage. The court’s ruling revealed that Gifty had deceived Asamoah Gyan.
Explaining why Asamoah Gyan was rather the victor, Baffour said, “My brother’s wife had already been married and he sent it to the court to annul it. We received the ruling to the effect that the lady deceived my brother.”
Baffour further emphasized that the properties held by Gifty were gifts from Asamoah Gyan, and the court confirmed her right to keep them. He also mentioned that Gifty’s legal team had initially requested over $1 million, but the court rejected their claim.
“The properties in the lady’s possessions were gifts from Asamoah Gyan and the court asked that she keep it. Her lawyers had wanted $ 1 million and more but the court denied their request.”
He added, “Asamoah Gyan has been in contact with his children throughout this case and has been taking care of them so the GH¢25,000 a month support to the children is no news.”