INTRODUCTION
The phrase “reaping what you have not sowed” captures the quiet tension that often shadows the end of a marriage when love gives way to litigation, and one spouse lays claim to property the other insists was earned alone.
In Ghana, this question has become one of the most delicate puzzles in family law: should a spouse who stayed home, cooked, cleaned, and raised children often sacrificing personal ambition be entitled to share in the fruits of property acquired during the marriage? Or should ownership follow only those who signed the cheques and took the loans?
It is in this uneasy space between love and law, equity and entitlement, that the Supreme Court’s decision in Peter Adjei v. Margaret Adjei [2021] DLSC 10156* found its voice. The case rekindled a national conversation about the true meaning of contribution in marriage asking when fairness becomes overreach, and when effort, though invisible, should still count as valuable.
For decades, Ghana’s courts have wrestled with this dilemma. Earlier cases like Mensah v. Mensah and Quartson v. Quartson expanded the meaning of “joint acquisition,” recognizing that unpaid domestic work and emotional support are as vital as financial input. Yet Adjei v. Adjei revisited that progress, questioning whether every property built during marriage should automatically be treated as joint or whether justice sometimes requires drawing a harder line between what was shared and what was personal.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Peter and Margaret Adjei were married under customary law for twelve years and had two children. When the marriage broke down, the husband petitioned for divorce.
The wife did not oppose the divorce but asked the court to:
- Give her the matrimonial home (one flat out of four apartments the husband built at Cantonments);
- Pay her GH¢400,000 alimony; and
- Provide monthly maintenance for herself and the children.
The High Court agreed with her in part. It granted the divorce, gave her custody of the children, settled one of the four flats on her, awarded GH¢500,000 as alimony, and ordered the husband to pay GH¢1,500 monthly as maintenance.
The trial judge reasoned that although the wife did not bring money into the marriage, her unpaid domestic work nurturing the family, cooking, cleaning, and caring for the children contributed to the husband’s ability to build wealth.
The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed. It set aside the house settlement, saying the husband acquired the property with his own bank loan and that the wife failed to prove any joint acquisition. The alimony and maintenance were allowed to stand.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court the wife wanted the house restored to her, and the husband wanted the alimony cancelled.
THE LEGAL ISSUE
The key question was:
Should a property built during a marriage, but financed by one spouse through a personal bank loan (not yet repaid), be considered a “jointly acquired” marital property to be shared after divorce?
This was the heart of the case testing how far Ghana’s courts would go in recognizing non-financial contributions in marriage.
THE SUPREME COURT’S MAJORITY DECISION
The Supreme Court, by a majority, sided with the husband.
Justice Yaw Appau (JSC), writing for the Court, held that the presumption that property acquired during marriage is jointly owned is not automatic. It is only a presumption and it can be rebutted with evidence.
In this case, the husband had shown that:
- The land at Cantonments was his before marriage;
- The houses were built with a bank loan he took alone;
- The loan was still being repaid when the marriage ended.
The Court said that until such a loan is fully repaid, the property cannot be treated as “jointly acquired.”
In other words, if the property itself is still under financial obligation, it cannot yet be distributed as a marital asset.
The Court emphasized that the wife did not lead evidence showing how she contributed either financially or through identifiable effort toward building the houses. Merely being married and performing domestic duties, without more, was not enough in the specific circumstances of this case.
The Court, however, upheld the GH¢500,000 alimony, saying it was a fair lump sum under section 20 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367).
JUSTICE PWAMANG’S CONCURRING OPINION
Justice Pwamang agreed with the majority but went further to clarify the law.
He noted that Article 22(3)(b) of the 1992 Constitution talks about “property jointly acquired during marriage,” not simply any property acquired during marriage.
He explained that the Constitution does not make every marital asset automatically joint — that idea came from later judicial decisions like Mensah v. Mensah. Thus, the rule that “property acquired during marriage is joint property” is a judicial presumption, not a constitutional guarantee.
This presumption, he said, can be defeated if one spouse proves that the other did not contribute at all. Once rebutted, the burden shifts the other spouse must show what they did to assist in acquiring the property.
THE DISSENTING VIEW
Justice Agnes Dordzie (JSC) disagreed strongly.
In her dissent, she argued that the trial judge was right to recognize the wife’s unpaid domestic services as valid contributions. For her, Mensah v. Mensah and Quartson v. Quartson had already moved Ghanaian law away from purely financial notions of ownership.
She warned that denying the wife a share because the loan wasn’t fully paid was unfair and inconsistent with the spirit of Article 22 of the Constitution, which aims to protect spouses from economic vulnerability.
To Justice Dordzie, the wife did sow through care, companionship, and service even if she didn’t hold a bank account or a building permit.
ANALYSIS : THE MEANING OF “REAPING WHAT YOU HAVE NOT SOWED”
This case invites us to reconsider what it truly means to “sow” within the context of marriage.
The majority of the Court seemed to hold that the law must protect a spouse from being compelled to share what was solely earned or borrowed. Justice Dordzie, however, offered a more expansive view that marriage itself is a partnership built on shared labour, sacrifice, and mutual support. To her, the stay-at-home spouse also sows, though the seeds are sown in care, stability, and devotion rather than in cash or contracts.
The decision in Adjei v. Adjei thus marks a subtle but significant shift in Ghana’s matrimonial property jurisprudence.
- Before Adjei v. Adjei, the ruling in Mensah v. Mensah had tilted the scales toward equity, making it easier for spouses particularly wives to claim an interest in property acquired during marriage, even without direct financial input.
- After Adjei v. Adjei, the courts are likely to take a more cautious approach, demanding clear and demonstrable proof of contribution, and refusing to assume equality merely from the existence of a marriage.
The Court’s introduction of what has been termed a “loan exception” adds a fresh dimension to this evolving field. Under this view, a property acquired with borrowed funds may not qualify as jointly owned until the debt has been fully discharged. It is a pragmatic rule one that shields the paying spouse from premature claims yet it is not without controversy.
Critics caution that this reasoning could become a convenient loophole for wealthier spouses to evade fair sharing by classifying properties as “loan-financed” or “self-acquired.” In this sense, Adjei v. Adjei both refines and complicates the path toward equity in marital property law, reminding us that justice in marriage must always balance effort, fairness, and truth
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE CASES
The decision has reshaped the discussion on spousal property in Ghana in several ways:
- Joint ownership is not automatic.
Courts will require evidence that the property was jointly acquired not merely acquired during marriage. - Non-financial contributions must be proven.
Domestic work, care, and support can still count but the spouse must show a link between that effort and the property acquired. - Loan-financed property is a grey area.
If the debt remains unpaid, it may not yet be “joint” property. - Gender neutrality matters.
The Court cautioned against assuming only wives deserve protection; equity applies to both spouses, whichever side holds the title deed.
CONCLUSION
Adjei v. Adjei challenges the comforting simplicity of earlier rulings. It tells us that marriage is not an automatic economic partnership; it is a relationship where contribution whether financial, emotional, or domestic must still be proven if one seeks a share of property.
The Court may have closed the door slightly on presumed joint ownership, but it also reminded us that equity is not charity it is fairness measured by effort and circumstance.
Still, one truth remains: every marriage is built by two lives intertwined. If we are to prevent injustice, the law must continue to recognize that some spouses sow not in money, but in time, care, and unseen labor and those seeds, too, deserve to bear fruit.
