Case of the week: Nana Ama Twumasi v Brenya Akusua Twumasi & Anor

Court of Appeal, Suit No. H1/127/2022

Introduction:

Can a woman who lived as a wife under both customary and ordinance marriage be denied recognition as a surviving spouse— simply because her husband had an undissolved prior marriage? And what becomes of properties she claims to have personally acquired during that union?

This appeal before the Court of Appeal revisited the intersection between void marriages, customary law, and property rights, offering crucial clarity on the status of long-term partners in complex marital histories.

Facts:

Mrs. Nana Ama Twumasi married Professor Patrick Twumasi under Akan customary law in 1983 and later under the Marriage Ordinance in 1987. The couple had three children and lived as husband and wife until the professor’s death in 2007.

⁠Unknown to her, the deceased had contracted a valid ordinance marriage in 1956 with a Dutch woman, Maria Theresa Sleggers, a union that had never been dissolved. Upon his death, two surviving children from that first marriage – the respondents – obtained letters of administration over his estate, excluding the appellant and her children.

The appellant sued, claiming among others:

1. Recognition as a surviving spouse;
2. Joint ownership of the East Legon property (H/No. C683/26); and
3. Exclusive ownership of the Adjiriganor property (H/No. 51, Plot No. 232).

The trial court dismissed her claims, holding that the second marriage was void. She appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues for Determination:

1. Whether the appellant was the surviving spouse of the late Prof. Patrick Twumasi.
2. Whether the Adjiriganor property formed part of the deceased’s estate.

The Court’s Holding:

The Court of Appeal partly reversed the trial court’s decision and held that:

1. Since Prof. Twumasi’s prior ordinance marriage had not been dissolved, any subsequent marriage (customary or ordinance) during its subsistence was void ab initio. A void marriage remains void whether or not declared by a court.
2. The appellant bore the burden of proving that the prior marriage had been dissolved. Having failed to provide such proof, the court properly treated the subsequent ordinance marriage as void.
3. Following the death of Maria Sleggers in 2003, the appellant and the late professor continued living as husband and wife, publicly recognized by both families. She performed widowhood rites, was listed as widow in the funeral brochure, and her status was uncontested by the family. The Court held that this amounted to a valid customary marriage.
4. Evidence showed that the appellant acquired and developed the Adjiriganor property with her own resources and through land purchased from the Otinshie family. The respondents failed to provide contrary proof. The Court therefore declared the Adjiriganor property the personal property of the appellant, excluding it from the deceased’s estate.

Implication of the Decision:

This case reaffirms a settled legal truth: a void marriage remains void, no matter how long the cohabitation or how publicly it is acknowledged. It also reflects the courts’ willingness to acknowledge customary marriages that emerge from long-standing cohabitation, family consent, and societal recognition.

The decision also reinforces the evidentiary principle that he who asserts must prove, and that property claims in matrimonial disputes hinge not on assumptions, but on proof and credibility.

In practical terms, the judgment protects partners who have lived and been recognised as spouses under Ghanaian custom, ensuring that justice aligns with both legal formality and social reality.

Significant Quote:

“The evidence on record impels me to come to the conclusion that the formal customary law marriage in 1983 and the Ordinance marriage in 1987 were void under law. However, that after 2003 with the death of Maria Theresa Sleggers the appellant and the late Prof. Patrick Twumasi lived as husband and wife and were acknowledged as such by the family of Yaw Twumasi. As a stranger cannot be called upon under custom to perform widowhood rites and be projected as the widow, those incidents sufficed in the eyes of the law to establish a customary law marriage. Being a widow therefore she was entitled to be joined as an administrator of the estate.”   –  Baffour JA

Commentary and Insight:

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Nana Ama Twumasi v. Brenya Akosua Twumasi & Anor mirrors the social and legal dilemmas that surfaced in the Daddy Lumba marital impasse. In both instances, long-term partners lived openly as spouses, yet their unions were clouded by a prior, undissolved ordinance marriage.

This case makes the law unmistakably clear: where a man remains bound by an existing ordinance marriage, any subsequent marriage – whether customary or by ordinance – is void. The law does not recognise it, however genuine the affection, public recognition, or shared life.

Yet the Court also carved a compassionate space for social reality. Once the first spouse dies, the surviving partner may become a customary wife if the relationship bears all the marks of marriage – mutual consent, family acceptance, and public acknowledgement.

It is a powerful reminder that while the law guards the sanctity of formal marriage, custom acknowledges the authenticity of lived relationships. The Daddy Lumba saga and this judgment together highlight the need for couples to regularise their unions – because love may be real, but the law only rewards what it recognizes.

Key Takeaway:
A void marriage remains void, but after the death of the first spouse, a long-term partner can validly become a customary wife if her status is publicly and customarily recognised.