Dr. Gilbert Anyetei (husband) filed for divorce against Mrs. Sussana Anyetei (wife) after nearly two decades of marriage. The wife counterclaimed/asked for dissolution of the marriage and sought custody of their children and 50% of all properties acquired during the marriage.
The properties in question included multiple houses in South Africa and Ghana, with some registered under the husband’s company. The wife argued that she had contributed financially and through matrimonial services, while the husband claimed he had solely acquired the properties through mortgage financing and business ventures.
The High Court ruled in favor of the wife, granting her 50% of the properties. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, reducing her entitlements and questioning the jurisdiction of Ghanaian courts over immovable property abroad. The wife then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that:
Ghanaian courts had jurisdiction over the properties in South Africa because the wife’s claim arose from the marital relationship rather than a direct dispute over ownership. This falls within a recognized exception to the Mozambique Rule, which generally prohibits courts from adjudicating foreign immovable property disputes. Since matrimonial property claims involve enforcing personal rights rather than altering land titles, the Ghanaian courts had the authority to determine a fair property settlement.
The wife was entitled to an equitable share of the marital properties, but not an automatic 50% division. The court emphasized that property settlement must be based on fairness, considering the parties’ contributions.
The wife’s contributions, including financial support and matrimonial services, warranted a share in the properties. However, the court ruled that she was responsible for any outstanding mortgages on the properties awarded to her. This decision aligns with the fairness principle in property division, ensuring that both assets and liabilities are equitably distributed. Granting her the properties without their associated mortgage obligations would have placed an unfair financial burden on the husband. By assigning both assets and liabilities proportionately, the court reinforced the principle that equitable sharing requires both parties to bear a fair share of financial responsibilities.”
The court held that properties owned by the husband’s company were not part of the marital estate, as the company was a separate legal entity. Although the husband “owned” the business, his personal interest in it did not automatically entitle the wife to a share of company-owned assets. This ruling upholds the corporate veil principle, which protects business assets from being treated as personal marital property unless there is proof of ownership, direct financial contribution, or misuse of the corporate structure to conceal asset. The Supreme Court ultimately awarded the wife six properties, two vehicles, and a lump sum alimony of $50,000.
Implications of the Decision: This case clarifies the Supreme Court’s approach to property settlement in divorce cases: Property division is based on equity or equitable sharing, not automatic equal sharing. While courts recognize spousal contributions beyond financial input, they assess fairness on a case-by-case basis.
Ghanaian courts can adjudicate foreign property disputes if claims are rooted in marriage or fiduciary relationships. This reinforces the court’s ability to ensure fair settlements, even for properties outside Ghana. Company assets remain separate from personal marital property. A spouse’s interest in a company does not automatically translate into a claim over company-owned properties.
Significant Quote:
“In situations where both spouses jointly acquired assets but their respective contributions are difficult to quantify, courts resort to the maxim: equality is equity. However, equitable sharing does not always mean equal division.” – PWAMANG JSC
Commentary/Insight:
This ruling reinforces the evolving nature of property rights in Ghanaian divorce law. While previous misconceptions suggested an automatic 50-50 division, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that property distribution must be equitable rather than equal.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the importance of clear documentation of financial contributions in property disputes. Spouses seeking property settlement must provide tangible proof of their input, as claims based solely on verbal agreements or general support may be scrutinized and rejected by the courts.
Nonetheless, the decision affirmed the notion or principle that contribution to the acquisition of matrimonial properties should not necessarily be pecuniary or financial. Rather, the decision reinforces the rising recognition by the Ghanaian Courts of the non-pecuniary contributions of spouses such as emotional support, performance of household chores and matrimonial services among others as elements of contributions to the acquisition of marital properties.