“I think she is an exquisite specimen of creation”: The ex-wife who shook the divorce proceedings

When Madam Susanna Anyetei, the beautiful ex-wife of the Ghanaian-trained and South African-based Gyaenoacologist was faced with the divorce petition by Dr. Gilbert Anyetei, she had to among others counter the husband’s claim of being unfaithful and disrespectful.

As such, Susan, who had for over 20 years married, counter-accused the husband of infidelity and mentioned the names of two women that the husband was involved with and the fact that one of them bore his seed.

She thus prayed for fifty(50%)percent of all the properties and other items standing between them as all were jointly acquired by them during the subsistence of the marriage.

With regards to her claim, Madam Susan testified at the trial that she was entitled to 50% of the properties acquired in South Africa and Ghana during the subsistence of the marriage because when she arrived in South Africa, she worked as a biochemist and paid her salary to her husband which he used to make those properties.

Further, she averred that she took a loan to set up a hairdressing saloon after she resigned from formal work and the agreement was that she should use the profit to take care of the home while her husband spent his money acquiring properties.

HIGH COURT

At the end of the trial, the court held that the wife had proved she jointly acquired all the properties with the husband and thus held that she was entitled to 50% of the properties.

Additionally, the judge ordered the husband to pay off some outstanding mortgage loans on properties to be granted to the wife.

Significantly, the trial judge was concerned about the beauty of Susan who she described as ‘an exquisite specimen not only of womanhood but of creation itself’ and the fact that twenty(20) years of her youthful and fruitful life had been wasted.

COURT OF APPEAL

The husband then went to the Court of Appeal which disagreed with the findings made by the trial High Court owing to the quantum of evidence led by the wife and the fact that the High Court erred by assuming jurisdiction over ownership and possession of immovable property situated in South Africa.

Further, the Court of Appeal faulted the trial judge on the 50-50 sharing of the property noting that the sharing should have been done equitably per the circumstance of this case with reference to Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision on Article 22(3)(b).

SUPREME COURT

The wife, who was dissatisfied then went to the Supreme Court.

One issue that confronted the court in the opinion of Pwamang(JSC),  was the matter of jurisdiction of Ghana’s court to share properties in South Africa, a different jurisdiction but it held that since the wife’s claim was based on a marriage contract entered into with the husband and rights under the same, she was entitled.

Secondly, the apex court held that since the husband admitted in his document that she was involved in signing some of the documents and the fact that they jointly acquired some of the properties, she had significantly contributed.

In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the property distribution made by the trial court thus giving the following properties to the wife;

(i)                 62 Dewaal Street Brackendowns,

(ii)              133 Dewaal Street Brackendowns,

(iii)            No. 5 Chagall,

(iv)            75 Hennie Albert Brackenhurst,

(v)              The first House bought by the parties at Ashongman, Accra, and

(vi)            One half portion of the land gifted to the parties by the wife’s father.

Additionally, the wife was given one 4X4 Mercedes Benz ML vehicle and one KIA Rio vehicle and Fifty Thousand United States Dollars (USṨ50,000.00) as the lump sum alimony to be paid to her.

The Court then ordered her to pay off any outstanding loans/liabilities in respect of any of the above properties given to her.

Read the full judgment on Dennislaw.