Woman may own property in own name and marriage has no effect on property owned by parties in their individual rights, however not same if property is acquired for benefit and use of family during subsistence of marriage. Where wife advances money for matrimonial home but conveyance in sole name of husband, he holds property as trustee for wife and reverse is also true per Bulley v Acoatse.
Where wife is able to prove substantial contribution not always in monetary form after dissolution of marriage, she will be entitled to a portion of the said property.
Settlement of Property Rights: Quartey v Quartey mere assistance by spouse doesn’t create share in the said property of the other.
Art 22-A spouse shall not be deprived of a reasonable provision out of the estate of a spouse whether or not the spouse died having made a will, parliament shall on the coming into force of the constitution, enact legislation regulating the property rights of spouses, spouses shall have equal access to property jointly acquired and assets shall be distributed equitably on the dissolution of the marriage
Article 18 on individual ownership of property, per Quartey v Martey (1959) Ollenu J “By customary law it is a domestic responsibility of a man’s wife and children to assist him in the carrying out of the duties of his station in life, e.g. farming or business. The proceeds of this joint effort of a man and his wife and or children, and any property which the man acquires with such proceeds, are by customary law the individual property of the man. It is not the joint property of the man and the wife and or children.
The right of the wife and the children is a right to maintenance and support from the husband and father”, affirmed in Clerk v Clerk, per Yeboah v Yeboah (1971) father purchased land for daughter who married, land to be registered in husband’s name, both assisted in the putting up of the building with wife even coming down at times, held that they intended to hold it as joint tenants, per Abebreseh v Kaah (1976) wife substantially contributed to the acquisition of the land and then they shared the financial household contribution and built the house, upon husband’s death members of the family continued to live there and customary successor sold same to another and this other served an ejection notice on wife. Court says there was joint ownership, per Anang v Tagoe (1989) husband purchased land, wife alleged substantial contribution and Brobbey said she was entitled. wife couldn’t produce documentary evidence but court granted reliefs.
Art 28(1b) Parliament shall enact law ensuring that ‘every child whether or not born out of wedlock shall be entitled to a reasonable provision out of the estate of parents. Coterminous with section 7 of Children’s Act, (Act 560) 1998, Art 28(5) child is one below 18yrs
PNDCL 111 upon death, Section 27 of MCA, Adom & Anor v Kwarley, Gyamaah v Buor, Quartey v Armar, Bentsi-Enchil v Bensti-Enchil, Reindolf v Reindolf,
Equality is Equity principle: Mensah v Mensah 1998 Date bah extensions made to house, wife claiming she financed solely court saying no such intention. Per Bamford Addo “the ordinary incidents of commerce have no application in marital relations between husband and wife who jointly acquired property during marriage”, per Boafo v Boafo (2005-2006) SCGLR Date-Bah unanimous decision “where there is a substantial contribution by both parties equality is equity and that the respective shares of the spouses will not be delineated proportionally as a marriage relationship is not a commercial relationship“, equality principle will be decided on case by case basis, per Quartson v Quartson Ansah “ it is the view of the court that the principle laid down in quartey v martey, cannot be allowed to stand in this twenty first century world”, Owoo v Owoo, Arthur v Arthur, per Mensah v Mensah 2012-Dotse; Fynn v Fynn –wood.