2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Dotse JSC, resolved a property distribution dispute arising from the dissolution of a marriage that evolved from a customary union (1989; evidence suggests 1987) to an Ordinance marriage. The couple, starting with no assets in La, jointly built a thriving trading enterprise—selling palm oil, staples, and later appliances—managed through a shop at the Ministries and supplier credit, with the Respondent working at the Controller and Accountant‑General’s Department and the Petitioner handling sales and shop supervision. From business proceeds they acquired multiple houses (Kasoa, Adenta, Krobo Odumasi, Spintex), vehicles, land, shares in Guidem Company Ltd, and an SSB Tudu account. After marital breakdown linked to Respondent’s infidelity, the High Court ordered equal sharing, which the Court of Appeal affirmed. Applying Articles 22(3) and 33(5), Mensah v. Mensah and Boafo v. Boafo, the Supreme Court embraced the equality‑is‑equity and Jurisprudence of Equality principles, recognized domestic contributions, upheld concurrent findings, permitted lifting Guidem’s corporate veil, and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT
JONES DOTSE JSC
Lord Denning in his book, “Landmarks in the Law” Butterworths, 1954, writes at page 176 “on change in attitude of the British people to Divorce” as follows:
“There is no longer any binding knot for marriage. There is only a loose piece of string which the parties can untie at will. Divorce is not a stigma. It has become respectable. One parent families abound.”
The above quotation can equally be said to be applicable to the Ghanaian society as well.
In the instant case since the parties are not contesting the issue of divorce, but only devolution of property acquired during the subsistence of the marriage upon divorce, we will focus our attention to those issues.
What then are the facts in this case? In view of the importance that this court attaches to the legal and constitutional issues determinable in this case, we have considered it worthwhile to narrate in great detail, not only the facts of the case, but the reasons behind the trial court decision as well as the dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Appeal.
This will necessarily lead to a discussion of the principles upon which concurrent findings of fact by a trial and first appellate court can be set aside or departed from by this court, i.e. second appellate court, as we have indeed being requested to do.
FACTS
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 23/7/2009 which affirmed the judgment of the High Court dated the 31st January 2003. In a petition filed on the 20th of April 2000, the Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent (hereinafter Petitioner) averred that she and the Respondent/Appellant/Appellant (hereinafter Respondent) were married under customary law in March of 1989 and converted to a marriage under the Ordinance in June of 1989. It however emerged from the evidence that the parities got married in 1987. About a decade after the celebration of this union, cracks started appearing in the marriage with the Petitioner accusing the Respondent of acts of infidelity which culminated in the Respondent moving into their jointly acquired home in Adenta with his illicit lover giving credence to the Petitioner’s allegations. After diligent efforts at reconciliation had failed, the Petitioner filed her petition for divorce at the High Court.
That the parties also acquired substantial assets during the subsistence of the marriage cannot be under emphasised. These the Petitioner listed in her petition as follows;
1. Unnumbered three bedroom hous