This is the appropriate time to correct the erroneous impression, mostly created by the Ghanaian media, regarding the sharing of matrimonial properties after a divorce.
There is no single statement of law, without any qualification, that matrimonial properties (properties acquired by spouses during marriage) should be shared equally or 50:50.
The law is that matrimonial property should be shared Equitably (Article 22(3)(b) of the 1992 Constitution). “Equitably” is from the word equity, and equity means what is fair and just, but not necessarily what is equal.
What is fair and just will therefore depend on how the property in question was acquired, and the contributions that each of the spouses made towards its acquisition.
So in effect;
1. If it will be equitable or fair to say that a wife is not entitled to any part of a property acquired by the husband, the Court will say so. and
2. Again, if it will be equitable or fair for the court to give the wife just 10% or 1% or 30% share of the property acquired by the husband, the Court will do so.
What is equitable, is what is fair. Equitable does not mean equal or 50:50. Thus, you can share a property equally between a husband and a wife and not be fair to one of them depending on the circumstances. E.g. it will not be fair to give a husband and the wife 50:50 share of a property solely built by the husband without any support from the wife, when the wife is said to have acquired similar properties from extra-marital affairs.
So when it comes to the sharing of matrimonial properties upon divorce, it is about the fairness in sharing but not the equality in sharing.
NOW TO HAKIMI’S CASE
The footballer, Hakimi, is said to have acquired assets in the name of the mom before and during his marriage to the wife. Upon divorce, the court found that those assets are his mom’s but not his own. and so the wife does not have a share in any of those assets.
The question is whether this principle is applicable under Ghanaian law, and the answer is a big YES.
First of all, it is a misconception to think that because a man is married, all properties he acquire are matrimonial properties. Again, it is erroneous to think that because a man is married he cannot acquire properties for his mom. Also, it is wrong to suggest that a married man cannot acquire his own or individual property during the marriage.
Under customary law, a man has a duty to cater for the his mom, so there’s nothing wrong with registering your properties in the name of your mom. Some men have vowed to live their lives for their moms, and neither a wife nor marriage can change that.
The Courts deal with evidence or proof. Before the court shares properties of a marriage, the court most importantly determine whether the property is a matrimonial property. In determining this, the Court looks at how and when the property was acquired, as well as the intention behind who was to be the legal owner of that property. So it is not enough to just say that my husband acquired the property during a time that I was married to him.
The wife needs to establish that the husband intended that the property should be a matrimonial property, or that the property was acquired because of, and for the purpose of, the marriage.
So if a married man acquires a property and registers same in the name of the mother, how on earth can you say, without any evidence to the contrary, that the said property should be a matrimonial property or was intended as such?
Thus, the Court will require evidence of the intended owner of the property if the property is registered in the name of someone else other than any of the spouses (The man’s intention can be deduced from his act of acquiring or registering the property in the name of someone else other than himself or his wife), If the wife is unable to provide that contrary evidence, then definitely that property cannot be a matrimonial property.
If a married man acquires a property under Ghanaian law, with intention that it should be owned by someone (child, mother, father, sister, uncle, girlfriend, sugarmama, friend, etc.) other than his wife, that property upon acquisition is not the man’s property nor his wife’s property, but the legal property of the person in whose name it was acquired or registered without more.
That is, the property does not become a matrimonial property, and as such same cannot be shared upon a divorce.
Achraf Hakimi earns about 1million Euros monthly and can’t tell the court that he owns nothing and therefore can’t grant the wife anything when he has 2 children with the wife. I feel this was a premeditated act just to get away with everything after cheating and breaking his own home.
Mr. Man, read the article again and again then come back to comment on it, we’re talking law, you’re talking about feelings, who cares about your feelings?
😃
Hahahahahahaha this guy married when he was 19 years and the woman was 31 at the time… if we actually want to go deep; I can say the lady accepted to marry him for this day. So I believe if he puts things in his mummy’s name since he started seeing money, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
Secondly, ain’t Muslims allowed to marry two or more if they so please?… Is His wife saying she didn’t know about that?
Thirdly, don’t you think the wife might have planted the supposed girl they claim her husband cheated with?
If indeed He raped the girl, why then was his name put back on the PSG squad list after they did their internal research??
Did he really have an affair with the girl?? Hasn’t he done something like that before ?? Or this one has been reported so she wants to use the opportunity to milk the man??
I’m just asking questions… Sir John I don’t think Hakimi saw this coming. I just think he was just being a mummy’s boy and it paid off in the end.
Thank you
Is there any limitation as to when a person can own a property? Making millions does not mean you should own properties. Properties can be acquired at your own pace remember. The intention behind hakimi’s action is genuine.
But the issue here is not about the kids unless of course the wife tries to be difficult I dnt think Hakimi will ignore his duty as a father or abandon his own kids. It’s high time we stop this unnecessary laws and be fair to ourselves.
A very good liar is a very good lawyer.
Interesting!!
Great piece.
Always on point and timely.
Very educative
This is a lesson to all especially men and to the gold diggers the question is was is true that all property was for the mom all he fast track everything after knowing the intention of the wife I think if the laws of my beloved country will take a que from this most marriages with problems maritally will not be rampant most of marriage in court filling for divorce is either one party is after others property
Éducative
So the definition of equitable is at the discretion of the court?
Exactly so
My question is, if a man files for a divorce he is made to compensate the woman.
Now, what happens if a woman files for a divorce based on unfounded charges like the rape case against Hakimi…..
The payment of compensation has nothing to do with who initiates the divorce proceedings. If it will be fair to order one party to compensate the other, the Court will do so without looking at who filed for the divorce. The fairness in compensating a party is mostly determined by looking at whose fault it is that the divorce is being filed.
Thanks for the quick clarification on the issue.
Hakimi is born bad.
He’s full of cheats.
1. Marital cheating
2. Financial cheating
The last has been so unfair in this circumstance. Even if for nothing at all, they have kids who are entitled to the property of their father.
The court must calculate every payments he received during their marriage and force him to pay a minimum of 20% to the lady for performing her marital duties.