AMMA OWUSU SARPONG v. KOJO OWUSU SARPONG
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SOWAH, J. A. (PRESIDING)
- OPPONG, J. A.
- MENSAH-HOMIAH, J. A.
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Angelina Mensah-Homiah (JA) authored a Court of Appeal judgment arising from a divorce dispute over a Kasoa house initially acquired and partially constructed by the husband before marriage. The High Court dissolved the marriage, held that the house bore the colour of matrimonial property, and awarded the wife a 50% share while denying compensation. On appeal, the husband challenged the equal division, invoking pre-marital acquisition and unequal equities. The Court applied Article 22(3)(b) and leading authorities, affirming the marital character but rejecting automatic equality. It found the wife’s direct and indirect contributions—including diverting £4,000 for building materials—insufficient to warrant equal division. Ground B of the appeal was struck for breaching Rule 8(4), but the court proceeded under the omnibus “against the weight of evidence” ground, allowed the appeal, substituted a 20% award to the wife, ordered valuation and possible buyout, and awarded no costs.
MENSAH-HOMIAH, JA:
INTRODUCTION
This judgment is rendered in respect of an appeal filed by the Respondent/ Appellant herein against the decision of the High Court, Koforidua, dated 13th December 2019, in favour of the Petitioner/Respondent. The fundamental issue raised by this appeal revolves around the partitioning of marital or spousal property upon dissolution of marriage, bearing in mind the “Jurisprudence of Equality”. In the course of this judgment, we would comment on this question in the light of the plethora of judicial pronouncements on the subject matter.
The designations of the parties at the court below would be maintained.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The parties married under the ordinance on 14th February, 2005 in Koforidua and the Respondent later assisted the Petitioner to join him in the United Kingdom (UK), where the couple lived together. At the time of the marriage, the Respondent had solely acquired a plot of land in Kasoa, Ghana, and had constructed a building thereon up to the window level. Prior to relocating to the UK, Petitioner supervised the construction of this building, and thereafter, her sister continued with the supervision. Whilst in the UK, the Petitioner took care of the home and further made funds available to the Respondent to continue with aspects of the construction of the Kasoa house. Respondent also took loans from his bankers which he applied to the construction of the building. One of the loans had not been paid off. Then, the happy marriage contracted on a valentine’s day turned sour.
On 16th October 2018, the Petitioner commenced divorce proceedings against her husband, the Respondent, seeking orders for the dissolution of the ordinance marriage between the parties, equitable sharing of “the Kasoa house”, at Titibu Junction and compensation for years of service. In his answer to the Petition, the Respondent agreed to a dissolution of the marriage since the parties are not compactible.
THE HIGH COURT DECISION
Having found that the marriage between the parties had broken down beyond reconciliation, the Learned High Court Judge in her Judgment delivered on 13th December, 2019, dissolved the ordinance marriage and dealt with the ancillary issues.
The Court below found as a fact that although the Petitioner may not have contributed to the acquisition of the land on which the house in issue was built, “all her actions after the marriage, her supervision of the property, her contribution in the course of the mar