Proof of contribution not required for ex-spouse to benefit from marital property – Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ghana has held that a spouse is no longer required to prove contribution—whether substantial or otherwise—as a condition for benefiting from marital property.

According to their Lordships, where it is just and equitable to convey immovable property as part of a financial settlement, such conveyance can be made under Section 20 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), regardless of whether the property was acquired before the marriage or solely by one party.

This principle was at the heart of a long-standing dispute between Augustina and Yaw Ampadu, whose decades-long relationship ended in court.

The couple, married under Kwahu customary law in 1985 shortly after Augustina completed school, had four children and shared many significant moments over the years.

In 2018, the High Court granted Augustina several key reliefs:

Dissolution of the marriage,

Custody and maintenance of their children still in school or undergoing training,

A lump sum payment of GH₵20,000, and

Ownership of their matrimonial home in Taifa.

However, the court dismissed her claim to additional properties, including six shops and a bar.

Displeased with the ruling, Yaw Ampadu argued that

Their marriage had already been dissolved long before the suit was filed,

The Taifa house was solely his, acquired before the marriage, and

The commercial properties in question were inherited from his mother.

When the first appellate court upheld the High Court’s decision, he escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, Ampadu reiterated his claims, challenging the award of the Taifa house to his former wife. However, the panel—Justices Lovelace-Johnson (presiding), Kulendi, Ackah-Yensu, Kwofie, and Darko Asare—found his arguments unconvincing.

The court highlighted inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the alleged customary divorce. While he claimed a divorce drink had been presented, he also admitted that Augustina’s family had rejected it due to religious beliefs. 

Moreover, despite claiming several witnesses were present, he failed to produce any independent testimony to corroborate the event.

On the issue of the Taifa house, the court noted that although Yaw purchased the land in 1982, the property was unfinished at the time of the marriage. The couple lived elsewhere until they jointly completed the house, even renting out part of it to finance the construction of a commercial property.

The court reiterated that proof of financial contribution is no longer a strict requirement to benefit from marital property. Citing landmark cases such as Arthur v. Arthur, Mensah v. Mensah, and Boafo v. Boafo, the Supreme Court emphasized that property settlements in divorce cases must be governed by fairness and equity, not merely by evidence of monetary input.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no legal or factual errors in the decisions of the lower courts. Yaw Ampadu’s appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the judgment in favor of Augustina Abena Boamah was upheld.

Log on to www.dennislawgh.com to read the full case.