PATIENCE ARTHUR v. MOSES ARTHUR
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DR.DATE BAHJSC (PRESIDING)
- ANIN-YEBOAH JSC
- P. BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC
- A. A. BENIN JSC
- J. B. AKAMBA JSC
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Constitutional Law
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana addressed the division of marital property following a divorce. The trial court had ruled in favor of dividing the property equally between the spouses. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, failing to apply the jurisprudence of equality. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's ruling, emphasizing that assets acquired during marriage are presumed to be jointly owned and should be equally divided, aligning with international human rights and the Constitution of Ghana.
DR. DATE-BAH JSC:
The Roman poet Virgil in his Eclogues asserts that “Omnia vincit Amor”, meaning that love conquers all things. Alas, the empirical evidence from divorce litigation belies this assertion. It is one of the responsibilities of the courts to sort out the messy consequences of love stories that have unravelled. This case falls into this category of love stories gone sour.
In its effort to put order into the messy consequences of the breakdown of the marriage of the parties to this suit, the Court of Appeal gave a judgment which constitutes a derogation from the advance subsequently made in the equal protection of spouses’ interests in marital property, in Mensah v Mensah (unreported judgment of this Court, Suit No.J4/20/2011, delivered on 22nd February 2012). The Court of Appeal’s decision therefore deserves careful scrutiny.
The Facts
This is an appeal from a unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal. The orders made by the Court after its judgment were as follows:
“The dissolved marriage is affirmed.
The Appellant is given reasonable access to the children in the U.K. and in Ghana.
Respondent is restrained from intermeddling with the assets of the dissolved marriage without the Appellant’s consent and approval.
Respondent is ordered to render accounts of the GH¢30,000 given her to buy treasury bills without (sic) 30 days hereof, failing that she shall refund the money to Appellant after the due date.”
The facts which led to the delivery of these orders and the judgment on which they were based were that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a customary marriage which was later converted into an Ordinance marriage, which was celebrated on 24th December, 1998 at the Emmanuel Presbyterian Church in Dansoman, Accra. The couple have three children.Both parties are citizens of Ghana and France, domiciled in Ghana. The respondent was a professional footballer who practised his profession in Nigeria, Germany,France and Dubai. While the petitioner lived with the respondent in France, she served as his driver, since he could not drive. She averred that, apart from the normal household work, she drove the respondent on all his rounds throughout the day and also drove the children to school and back for the entire duration of their stay in France. It was part of her case that the respondent refused to allow her to look for work because of this driving responsibility. She further averred that it was the understanding between the parties