2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
After a 25-year marriage, the wife petitioned for divorce against her husband, a seafarer, alleging unreasonable behavior and adultery, and sought custody, property, and financial reliefs, including recognition of her role as a director in Pious Trading and Construction Company Limited. The husband cross-petitioned and claimed sole acquisition of the matrimonial home. The trial court dissolved the marriage, ordered the wife to vacate the home, and awarded GH235,000 plus a double plot and a Nissan Pathfinder; the Court of Appeal largely affirmed but increased the settlement to GH50,000. On further appeal, Justice J. Ansah, writing for the Supreme Court, rejected reliance on Quartey v. Martey and embraced constitutional and modern principles, including Mensah v. Mensah, Boafo v. Boafo, and the recent Gladys Mensah v. Stephen Mensah, to hold that domestic supervision and household work can count toward equitable sharing of matrimonial property. Recognizing the husbands sole financial contributions and the wifes substantial non-financial supervision, the Court denied equal division but acknowledged her share, increased her financial settlement to GH565,000, confirmed the double plot award, and rejected claims for directors fees and 40% share value against Pious Pope Quartson, citing separate corporate personality.
J U D G M E N T
ANSAH, J.S.C.
The Petitioner and the Respondent lived together as husband and wife for 25 years. The petitioner petitioned for divorce, citing unreasonable behaviour and adultery and sought the following reliefs:
i. That the said marriage be dissolved.
ii. That the petitioner be granted custody of Perry, the minor child of the marriage
iii. That the respondent be ordered to vacate the matrimonial home
iv. That the Petitioner be paid a lump sum of ¢500, 000, 000 (Five Hundred Million cedis) as dissolution settlement
v. That the Petitioner be given all her director’s fees and allowances as a director of Pious Trading and Construction Company Limited of which the Respondent has coveted as “his” company.
vi. That the Petition’s [SIC] 40 percentum shares in Pious Trading And Construction Company Limited be quantified and paid to her as part of the marriage settlement.
vii. That the Respondent be condemned in costs
viii. That the Petitioner may have such further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit having regard to property rights.
The respondent cross petitioned and sought the following reliefs:
(a) That the marriage be dissolved
(b) That the Respondent be given custody of all the children of the marriage
(c) That an order be directed to petitioner to vacate from matrimonial house when put up solely from the sweat of Respondent.
The trial judge dissolved the marriage, but dismissed the Petitioner’s prayer that the Respondent be ordered to vacate the matrimonial home. The court awarded a lump sum of GH¢35,000 (Thirty-five ThousandGhana Cedis) instead of the Petitioner’s prayer of GH¢50,000. In addition the court awarded the appellant one double plot of land either at the North of Kwesimintsim or Anaji and a Nissan Pathfinder with registration number WR 4141 T. The petitioner was further ordered to vacate the matrimonial home within 30 days.
The petitioner appealed against the trial court’s decision. In the Court of Appeal, the petitioner’s grounds of appeal were thus,
a) The trial judge erred in ordering the petitioner to vacate the matrimonial home within 30 days;
b) The trial judge erred in not vesting the matrimonial home in the petitioner;
c) The trial judge erred in not ordering the respondent to vacate the matrimonial home;
d) The amount of GH¢35,000 awarded to the petitioner as financial settlement was woefully inadequate considering the circumstances of the marriage and the evidence on record;
e) The trial