The Supreme Court has clarified that merely overseeing construction work on property acquired by a spouse before marriage does not entitle the other s
The Supreme Court has clarified that merely overseeing construction work on property acquired by a spouse before marriage does not entitle the other spouse to an automatic 50–50 ownership split.
In Amma Owusu Sarpong v Kojo Owusu Sarpong (Civil Appeal No. J4/77/2023), the apex court dismissed an appeal by a wife who sought to reclaim a half share in a house built by her husband prior to their marriage. Instead, the Court upheld a reduced 20% interest, affirming an earlier Court of Appeal decision.
The ruling marks the first lead judgment delivered by Justice K. T. Ackaah-Boafo since his elevation to the Supreme Court.
Background of the Dispute
Evidence before the Court showed that the husband purchased the land at Tetegu near Kasoa and had already begun construction long before the marriage in 2002. By the time the couple married, the building had reached window level.
The husband later financed further construction to the lintel level while the couple lived in the United Kingdom. The wife’s claim to equal ownership was grounded largely on her assertion that she supervised the construction whenever funds were sent to Ghana, and that her sister allegedly continued the supervision when she was unavailable.
She also claimed to have contributed £4,000, originally set aside for IVF treatment, for the purchase of doors and windows, as well as £800 for sand.
Why the Court Rejected a 50% Claim
The Supreme Court found that while the wife did advance the £4,000, evidence from bank records and cross-examination showed that the husband fully refunded the amount. The wife was unable to prove that she later returned the refunded money to the husband, as she alleged.
The Court further relied on Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, which protects the right of individuals to own property independently during marriage. According to the Court, property acquired before marriage does not automatically become jointly owned unless there is clear proof of joint acquisition or substantial contribution.
On the issue of supervision, the Court drew a firm line between assisting with construction and acquiring ownership.
In the lead judgment, Justice Ackaah-Boafo stated:
“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.”
Concurring Views
In a concurring opinion, Justice D. D. Adjei emphasised that supervision alone could not justify equal ownership where the property had already been substantially developed before the marriage.
He noted that it would be unjust to divide equally a property that the husband had independently acquired and developed up to window level before the marriage, especially where the wife could not prove significant financial contribution beyond supervision.
Justice Adjei also dismissed claims that the wife’s sister’s alleged involvement enhanced her interest in the property, observing that no evidence supported that assertion.
Not a Matrimonial Home
The Court further noted that the wife had never lived in the house, meaning it did not qualify as a matrimonial home. As a result, legal principles tied to permanent residence and shared domestic intention did not apply.
Final Determination
The Supreme Court concluded that supervision of construction is a recognisable equitable contribution, but one that must be assessed in light of when the property was acquired and who bore the financial burden of its development.
In the circumstances, the Court held that a 20% share fairly reflected the wife’s contribution to improving the property, rather than its original acquisition, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
COMMENTS