The Supreme Court has set out comprehensive guidelines to assist trial courts in the fair and equitable distribution of marital property following divorce, marking a significant development in Ghana’s family law jurisprudence.
Landmark ruling in Sarpong v Sarpong
The guidance was delivered on September 17, 2025, in the case of Sarpong v Sarpong, in a judgment authored by Justice Ackaah-Boafo of the Supreme Court, who emphasised that while equality remains a guiding principle, the distribution of marital property must ultimately be grounded in evidence, context and the justice of each individual case.
Courts must justify percentage awards
In the ruling, the apex court reiterated that where a trial court determines to award a specific percentage of marital property to either spouse, it has a duty to clearly articulate the basis for that decision.
According to the court, such determinations must not be arbitrary but must be anchored in a careful assessment of the circumstances under which the property was acquired and the nature of the marital relationship.
Duration of marriage as a key consideration
Justice Ackaah-Boafo explained that one of the first considerations a court must examine is the duration of the marriage, particularly in relation to the time the disputed property was acquired.
A long marriage, the court noted, may justify a different distribution outcome from a relatively short one, especially where property acquisition occurred at a specific stage of the union.
Ownership of land and timing of construction
The Supreme Court further directed trial courts to examine ownership of the land on which the disputed property stands.
In cases where land was acquired solely by one spouse before marriage, that fact must be taken into account when determining the extent of the other spouse’s interest in any development constructed on it.
Closely linked to this is the chronology of construction.
The court held that judges must determine whether construction began before or during the marriage, as this timing has a direct bearing on whether the property can properly be considered a marital asset subject to equal or proportional sharing.
Source of funds and loans scrutinised
Another critical factor highlighted by the court is the source of acquisition of the property.
Where property was acquired using pre-existing financial resources of one spouse, or through a loan that remains unpaid, the court said such facts must be carefully weighed before awarding an equal share to both parties.
Role of pre-marital assets
Justice Ackaah-Boafo also underscored the importance of considering pre-marital assets, particularly where one spouse brought significant property or financial resources into the marriage that substantially contributed to the acquisition or enhancement of the disputed property.
Financial standing and debt history
In addition, the court stated that trial judges must examine the financial standing and indebtedness of the parties at the commencement of the marriage.
Where one spouse entered the marriage heavily indebted but later became financially stable due to the contributions, management or support of the other spouse, that transformation must be reflected in the distribution of property.
Assessing financial contributions during marriage
The Supreme Court further directed attention to the financial contributions made by each spouse during the marriage.
These include direct monetary inputs toward acquiring, maintaining or improving the disputed property.
contributions, the court said, must be assessed with precision and fairness.
Mutual financial understandings matter
Beyond direct financial inputs, the court emphasised the relevance of mutual financial understandings between spouses.
Where there was an express or implied agreement to maintain financial equality or joint ownership during the marriage, this understanding should inform the court’s final decision.
Non-monetary contributions equally recognised
Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that non-monetary contributions must be accorded equal respect and weight.
Justice Ackaah-Boafo noted that domestic work, child-rearing, emotional support and moral encouragement, though intangible, are invaluable contributions that sustain marriages and enable economic productivity.
These contributions, the court stressed, are no less significant than financial ones.
Guidelines to guide, not limit, judicial discretion
Summarising the court’s position, Justice Ackaah-Boafo referred to earlier landmark decisions, including Adjei v Adjei, describing them as part of a “trilogy” that firmly establishes a contextual, evidence-based approach to the division of marital property.
He clarified that the guidelines outlined in Sarpong v Sarpong are not intended to restrict judicial discretion, but rather to guide trial judges toward decisions that reflect the full reality of the marital relationship.
Balancing equality with justice
“When that is done,” the judge held, “an objective assessment can then be made as to whether a 50 per cent interest or a lesser or greater share ought properly to be granted.”
Implications for divorce proceedings
Legal analysts say the ruling provides much-needed clarity and structure for lower courts handling divorce-related property disputes, while preserving the flexibility required to ensure that justice is done in each individual case.
The decision is expected to influence divorce proceedings across the country by promoting transparency, consistency and fairness in the distribution of marital assets.
