Wives Are Entitled To Property Settlement Despite Void Marriage - Supreme Court

The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971 (Act 367) provides for property settlement when a marriage is declared void or in the event of divorce. Therefore, the Act makes no distinction between a divorce and a nullity declaration.

It stipulates in Section 20 (1):

"The Supreme Court may order either party to the marriage to pay to the other party a sum of money or to transfer to the other party movable and immovable property as settlement or property rights or in lieu thereof or as part of a financial provision that the Court deems just and equitable."

In light of this, the Supreme Court, in the opinion of Justice Owusu, affirmed the decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, holding that the properties enumerated in the High Court's judgment, excluding the Nissan X-Terra, should be divided equally between the parties.

The court also ordered the appellant to transfer or convey the interest in one-half of the Aplaku properties to the respondent (wife) in accordance with Section 21 of Act 367.

Fact

Pascal Muako, an entrepreneur and appellant, was born in Cameroon. He imports and sells used clothing from Canada to Ghana, Cameroon, and Guinea, while Lydia Kwaw, the respondent, is a Ghanaian used clothing merchant.

In the course of their business dealings, the parties met. Subsequently, the appellant wed the respondent in 2003 in the presence of the respondent's family at Nkoranza, in the then Brong Ahafo Region, in the presence of the respondent's family.

As evidenced by the Marriage Certificate issued on August 30, 2003, their union was converted to a civil union. They also resided together and cohabited in their marital residence in Aplaku whenever the appellant visited Ghana from 2003 to 2011.

The wife filed for a decree of nullity on the grounds that the marriage is invalid under the law and that the respondent be granted a share in all assets acquired by the parties or acquired after the formation of PASCO M & SONS LTD. and costs.

However, in his cross-petition, the man denied being legally married to the respondent. He also denied that the respondent contributed financially to the acquisition of any of the properties, as the latter was an indigent living in abject poverty at the time they met.

A remarkable aspect of the trial was the defendant's insistence that his marriage to the defendant was a sham intended solely to facilitate the latter's visa application for travel to Canada.

In its judgment, the trial High Court concluded that the respondent believed for all intents and purposes that she was legally married to the appellant, and declared the marriage null and void because, at the time he married the Ghanaian woman, he was already legally married to Suzanne Nkwekwe in Canada.

The individual, dissatisfied with the outcome, particularly the property settlement, appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court upheld the original decision.

Pascal subsequently petitioned the supreme court, arguing, among other things, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

After analyzing the factual determinations of the two lower courts, the supreme court concluded that, given the respondent's contribution to the acquisition of the properties, it is only fair and just that he be awarded a portion of the properties, and therefore upheld the decision of the High Court, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.