Published January 18, 2026
Matters Arising from Sarpong and Sarpong
This past week, the Supreme Court of Ghana released its judgment in the case of Ama Owusu Sarpong and Kojo Owusu Sarpong. The case revolved around a marriage couple who had applied successfully for a divorce but did not agree on the sharing ratio adopted by the High Court and Court of appeal of a residential property situate at Kasoa.
Although the residential property was commenced by the Mr Sarpong and had been developed to the window level, same was completed while the marriage was in force. The woman claimed to have contributed to the eventual completion of the house mainly through her supervision of the construction of the house and some £ 4,800 that she claimed to have used to purchase some doors, windows and sand for the building.( although it was equally found that the husband subsequently refunded the said amount to her).
At the trial High Court, the wife was awarded a 50% share of the property in question. On appeal to the Court of Appeal by the husband, the appellate court reviewed the decision and reduced the wife’s share to 20%.
Dissatisfied with that outcome, the wife appealed to the Supreme Court, the second and final appellate court.
In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court undertook a careful examination of the principles governing marital property distribution and practically endorsed or affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal and, inter alia, held as follows;
1. The Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional right of an individual to acquire properties, either before or during marriage; and in the particular facts of this case, held that the properties acquired by a man or a woman before their marriage do not generally become marital or matrimonial properties.
2. The Supreme Court did not accept that a spouse merely supervising the construction of a house and the performance of domestic duties automatically entitles the said spouse to have a joint interest or equal ownership in the property, especially when as it was found that the property had been largely developed before or or at the time of the marriage by the other spouse.
The Supreme Court’s latest decision in Sarpong v Sarpong thus builds upon and refines earlier authorities such as Adjei v Adjei and Gladys Mensah v Stephen Mensah, clarifying the factors that trial and appellate courts must consider when distributing marital property in a way that is fair and equitable.
These factors include, the duration of the marriage, ownership of the bare land, financial and non-financial contributions, source of the resources for the acquisition of the house etc.
Court acquits rescue workers accused of smuggling migrants
The case is about a group of 24 aid workers who had been put on trial in Greece after rescuing migrants at sea. They were acquitted of all charges in a case that had been widely condemned by rights groups as an attempt to criminalize rescue work.
The former volunteers faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted on charges including facilitating illegal entry, money-laundering and membership of a criminal organization.
Their prosecution was the latest salvo against both aid workers and migrants across Europe as leaders in Greece and beyond aimed to prevent a repeat of the 2015-2016 crisis that saw hundreds of thousands of people flee war and poverty.
The island of Lesbos, where the trial took place, was the front line of that crisis — and a focal point for volunteers who scrambled from across the world to rescue migrants at sea and help them after they landed. The volunteers included Ms. Mardini and her 23 co-defendants, who worked with the now-defunct Greek nonprofit Emergency Response Center International. The New York Times
A Custody Battle Over Dogs
After losing his re-election bid last year, Former President of Malawi Lazarus Chakwera ordered all four guard dogs at the presidential palace in Lilongwe loaded into a police truck and delivered to his private residence.
His replacement argues the dogs are, in essence, civil servants and the president should have the staff that comes with the job.
A month after taking office, President Peter Mutharika dispatched 80 policemen to Chakwera’s house to retrieve the dogs. Chakwera, 70, refused to open the door, beginning a political and legal standoff. The former president’s allies in Parliament rushed to his home to prevent the dogs’ removal. His lawyers rushed to court.
The Lilongwe Magistrate Court temporarily barred police from further attempts to seize them. The decision turned on a technicality: Police demanded the surrender of four German shepherds; the disputed dogs are, in fact, one Dutch shepherd and three Belgian Malinois.
The day after the ruling, police secured a court order specifying the correct breeds. The court revoked the search warrant two days later to allow for a full hearing and ruling on the entire case. It has yet to make a final decision. The Wall Street Journal.
US judge restricts ICE response to Minneapolis protesters
A US federal judge has issued an order limiting the crowd control tactics that can be used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) towards “peaceful and unobstructive” protesters in Minneapolis.
Judge Katherine Menendez ruled on Friday that federal agents cannot arrest or pepper spray peaceful demonstrators, including those monitoring and observing ICE agents.
The ruling comes ahead of planned weekend protests against the widespread immigration action in the city and follows the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent earlier this month. BBC
