SOME THOUGHTS
One of the most discussed areas of Ghanaian law is the issue of the distribution of property acquired by the parties during and in the course of the marriage. This area of law has seen significant development since the 1950, and continue to evolve, and therefore appears far from settled. For instance, in 1957, the High Court in Ghana held that that by customary law it is the duty of a man’s wife and children to assist him in the carrying out of the duties of his station in life. The proceeds of that joint effort, and any property which the man acquires with such proceeds, are by customary law the individual property of the man, not the joint property of all. For a long time therefore, this was understood to mean that women have no share in the property acquired by their spouses in the course of the marriage. This view reflected in many of the cases decided around that time and well into the 1970s and 1980s, when the principle of substantial contribution before the principle of equality is equity was established and affirmed much later.
In an interesting case, recently decided by the Supreme Court, an attempt by a judgment creditor to attach, what was supposed to be the judgment debtor’s share of a property acquired in the course of the marriage was rejected by the court. The Supreme Court affirmed the view of the trial High Court and the Court of Appeal that the distribution of a matrimonial property can only be done upon the dissolution of the marriage, where there is a claim for an equitable share of the said property. Therefore, before the marriage is dissolved, a person cannot attach the interest of a party to the marriage in satisfaction of any liability, particularly those relating to court proceedings, like it was in the case of Electroland Ghana Limited v. Madam Paulina Adomako & Kingsley Adomako. This clarification is to say the least most welcoming and underscores the evolving nature of this aspect of Ghanaian law. Were it not the case, couples will be unduly interfered with in the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their properties on the basis of a claim against their spouse, who may in fact have incurred the liability without the knowledge of or benefit to the spouse who actually acquired or contributed mostly towards the acquisition of the property.