In a series of landmark rulings, Ghana’s Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped how matrimonial property is divided upon divorce, moving away from the notion of an automatic equal split toward a stricter, evidence-based system.
Legal experts say the court’s recent decisions establish a clear new playbook: what matters now is not just when a property was bought, but who can prove they contributed to acquiring it.
At the heart of the shift is Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees spouses “equal access” to property jointly acquired during marriage but mandates only an “equitable,” or fair, distribution when the marriage ends. The Supreme Court’s latest judgments make it clear that “equitable” does not mean a guaranteed 50-50 divide.
The End of the ‘Automatic 50%’ Assumption
In a significant ruling, Madam Abena Pokua v Yaw Kwakye (J4/17/2025), the court explicitly rejected the idea that a spouse is automatically entitled to half of all property acquired during the marriage.
The court stressed that a spouse claiming a share of an asset must provide credible evidence of their contribution—whether financial or non-financial. The decision also introduced a key consideration for polygamous marriages, noting that it would be “unreasonable and inequitable” for one wife to claim half of all properties without considering the interests of other wives.
‘Supervision’ is Not Co-Ownership
The fate of a house in Kasoa, at the centre of the case Amma Owusu Sarpong v Kojo Owusu Sarpong (J4/77/2023), further illustrates the new, calibrated approach.
The husband had acquired the land and built the structure up to the window level before the marriage. Although the wife supervised its completion after their wedding, the Supreme Court ruled this did not grant her an equal ownership stake. It found that her post-marital input was an “incremental enhancement,” not a basis for co-ownership. The court affirmed a 20% interest for the wife, rather than the 50% she sought.
“The Court’s decisive statement is clear: supervision of construction on a property acquired and substantially developed before marriage does not justify an equal proprietary interest,” the ruling stated.
Polygamy ‘Not a Discount Factor’
However, the court also offered a crucial clarification for wives in polygamous unions. In Ayishetu Kadiri v Abdul Dwamena (J4/36/2024), the court firmly warned against using polygamy as a reason to diminish a wife’s claim.
The court stated that polygamy is “not a discount factor.” If a wife can prove joint acquisition and the circumstances support an equal division, polygamy alone cannot be used to deny her that right. In this specific case, however, the wife failed to provide enough evidence to rebut the husband’s claim that he solely financed the properties, and her award was limited to a monetary settlement.
The New Legal Landscape
These three recent decisions build on a line of cases stretching back to the 1990s, culminating in what legal practitioners are calling a “new operating standard.” Key takeaways for the public include:
· Presumption is not proof: While property acquired during marriage is presumed to be jointly owned, this can be overturned by evidence of sole acquisition, a gift, or a lack of contribution.
· Evidence is king: All contributions, from homemaking to financial support, must be anchored in credible evidence. Sentimental claims are no longer sufficient.
· Pre-marital assets are protected: Property owned or substantially developed before a wedding generally remains with the original owner, unless the other spouse can prove significant post-marital contribution transformed it into a joint asset.
· Fairness, not formula: The court will use Section 20 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (Act 367) as a “strategic balancing instrument” to reach a just outcome, which may include a monetary payment instead of a share of a physical asset.
The Supreme Court’s message is unambiguous: divorce settlements in Ghana are no longer about broad-brush fairness, but a precise, evidence-driven calculation of each spouse’s contribution.
