Husband’s house cannot be attached to satisfy wife’s debt—Supreme Court

At a time when a wife, who was indebted to the plaintiff, was burdened by a summary judgment obtained against her, the plaintiff, now a judgment creditor, moved to execute the judgment.

In part, the court held:

“I will accordingly grant the application for summary judgment and further grant leave for the plaintiff to recover the sum of GH₵1,004,747.70, together with interest at the commercial bank rate from January 2014 until the date of final payment.”

The court further awarded costs against the woman, assessed at 7% of the judgment sum.

Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to satisfy the judgment debt by attaching House No. 04800375-10 NNK 04, Ashalley Botwe. 

However, the husband of the judgment debtor, upon learning of the move, filed a notice of claim over the property. The plaintiff, contesting the claim, responded with an affidavit of interest in the property.

High Court

Following a full hearing, the High Court made two key findings:

1. The property in question was solely owned by the claimant (the husband).
2. Until a divorce is legally granted, a husband’s property cannot be attached to satisfy the debts of his wife.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the said property be released from attachment.

Court of Appeal

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling, affirming that the house could not be attached to satisfy the wife’s debt.

Supreme Court

At the apex court, a five-member panel comprising Justices Lovelace-Johnson, Gabriel Pwamang, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Ackah-Yensu, and Asiedu Adibu considered the matter.

The panel addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the wife had signed the indenture for the building and was therefore presumed to have a share in the property.

Writing for the court, Lovelace-Johnson JSC stated:

“Admittedly, the property was acquired during the still-subsisting marriage, but the defendant signing as a witness is certainly not evidence that the property was acquired with her contribution.”

The court further held that the wife had failed to produce any evidence to establish an equitable interest in the property. As such, it could not be used to satisfy a debt incurred solely by her.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, concluding that:

“The property in question cannot be attached in satisfaction of the defendant’s debt for the reason that no such equitable right has been proved.”

Want to know more?
Log onto Dennislawgh.com and read the full judgment in the case:
Electroland Ghana Limited v. Madam Paulina Adomako and Kingsley Adomako