Merely supervising husband’s building doesn’t guarantee wife 50% ownership-Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled in Amma Owusu Sarpong v Kojo Owusu Sarpong (Civil Appeal No. J4/77/2023) that a spouse’s supervision of building works on property acquired by the other spouse prior to the marriage does not justify an equal 50% split of that asset. 

In the first opinion authored by Justice K. T. Ackaah-Boafo since his elevation to the Supreme Court, the bench dismissed an appeal by the Wife to restore a 50% interest initially granted by a trial court.

The undisputed evidence established that the Husband purchased the land and commenced construction of the house at Tetegu near Kasoa before the parties married in 2002. By the time of the marriage, the structure had already reached the “window level.” The Husband provided the funding to expand the building to the “lintel level” while the Wife joined him in the United Kingdom.

The Wife argued for an equal share based on the claim that she supervised the construction whenever the Husband remitted funds to her while they lived abroad, and that her sister, Esther Amponsah, continued this supervision in her absence. She further claimed to have provided £4,000 (originally intended for IVF treatment) to purchase doors and windows, and £800 for sand.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision to reduce the Petitioner’s interest to 20%, citing several evidentiary and legal findings. The Court said that while the Wife proved she advanced the £4,000, bank statements and cross-examination revealed that the Husband had fully refunded these sums. The Wife failed to provide corroborative evidence for her claim that she subsequently returned the refunded money to the Husband.

The Court further held that under Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, individuals retain the right to own property independently during marriage. The Court held that pre-marital acquisitions do not automatically become “jointly acquired” marital property unless there is clear evidence of joint effort toward its acquisition.

Regarding the relationship between the supervision of construction and the ownership of property, the Supreme Court held that such efforts do not entitle a spouse to an equal share where the property was largely acquired and funded by the other spouse prior to the marriage.

In the lead judgment, the Court noted:

“Her supervisory role during construction, her domestic contributions as a spouse, and any ancillary financial inputs reasonably justify the Court of Appeal’s assessment that a twenty per cent (20%) interest is fair and equitable in the circumstances of this case.”

In his concurring opinion, Justice D. D. Adjei provided further clarification on why supervision alone was insufficient to warrant a 50% share:

“…it would be unfair to share the property acquired and developed by the Respondent up to a level before he married the Petitioner, who could not prove her contribution in cash apart from the supervision she undertook over the construction before she joined the Respondent in the United Kingdom. The twenty percent share given to the Petitioner is fair and just, reflecting her contribution to the property.”

Additionally, Justice Adjei addressed the Petitioner’s claim regarding her sister’s assistance, stating that “there is no evidence on record that she supervised the construction of the building to add to the Petitioner’s interests in the property.

The Court ultimately concluded that while supervision is a “recognisable equitable interest,” it must be weighed against the chronology of construction and the fact that the Respondent had independently developed the property to the window level before the marriage.

The Court also found that the Wife had never resided in the house, meaning it did not qualify as a “matrimonial home,” which would have attracted different legal considerations regarding permanent residence and intention.

The Court concluded that the 20% share awarded to the wife was fair and just, reflecting her actual contribution to the enhancement of the property rather than its acquisition.