How dissolution works under Act 367

The starting point for divorce is the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367). Sections 1 and 2 provide that either spouse may present a petition and that the sole ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation. Proving one listed fact is necessary, but it is not automatically sufficient: the court must also be satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has broken down beyond reconciliation.Source

Section 2(1) lists six facts:

  1. the respondent committed adultery and, because of that adultery, the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent;
  2. the respondent behaved in a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;
  3. the respondent deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before presentation of the petition;
  4. the parties did not live as man and wife for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before the petition and the respondent consents, subject to the court’s power where consent is unreasonably withheld;
  5. the parties did not live as man and wife for a continuous period of at least five years immediately before the petition; or
  6. after diligent effort, the parties were unable to reconcile their differences.Source

The court must inquire, so far as reasonable, into the facts alleged by both parties. A petition should therefore present evidence supporting the particular fact or facts relied upon, rather than merely state that the relationship has ended.Source

The authoritative statutory text is available in the official Act 367 PDF.Source

Reconciliation, the two-year restriction and jurisdiction

Section 8 requires the petitioner or counsel to tell the court about reconciliation efforts made before and after proceedings began. If the court considers reconciliation reasonably possible, it may adjourn the case and direct an attempt involving the spouses, family representatives or a mutually acceptable conciliator. The report following that process is limited, and statements or actions connected with the directed reconciliation attempt are not admissible in the divorce proceedings.Source

Under section 9, a divorce petition normally cannot be presented within two years after the marriage. The court may grant leave for an earlier petition where the petitioner has suffered substantial hardship or the respondent has shown depravity. In considering leave, the court must address the interests of any child of the household and the reasonable possibility of reconciliation.Source

Section 31 gives the court jurisdiction where either spouse is a Ghanaian citizen, is domiciled in Ghana, or has been ordinarily resident in Ghana for at least three years immediately before proceedings begin.Source

Express powers concerning spouses, property and children

Sections 18–22 set out relevant powers. Section 18 permits the court to exercise the powers in that Part in proceedings under the Act. Under section 19, the court may, where just and equitable, award maintenance pending suit or financial provision to either spouse after considering the parties’ standard of living and circumstances.Source

Section 20 permits an order requiring one spouse to pay money or convey movable or immovable property to the other as settlement of property rights, in place of such rights, or as part of financial provision, on terms the court considers just and equitable. Payment or conveyance may be ordered in gross or by instalments.Source

Under section 21, after a decree of divorce or nullity, the court must order an appropriate transfer where it is satisfied that one spouse holds title to movable or immovable property which rightfully belongs, wholly or partly, to the other. If the ordered party cannot or will not execute the transfer, the registrar may be directed to do so.Source

Section 22 requires the court to inquire whether there are children of the household. It may make an order it considers reasonable and beneficial for a child, including orders on custody, access, education and maintenance from the property or income of either or both spouses.Source

Mensah: recognising joint acquisition

In Mensah v Mensah, the Supreme Court of Ghana in 2012, reported as [2012] 1 SCGLR 391, addressed equitable distribution of jointly acquired matrimonial property. Later Supreme Court judgments discussing Mensah record the court’s movement away from treating mathematical proof of direct financial payments as the sole basis of entitlement and associates the decision with the expression “equality is equity.”Later judgment discussing Mensah

The decision is important where evidence supports joint acquisition but the spouses’ respective contributions are not represented only by receipts or title documents. It should not, however, be converted into an assumption that every asset associated with either spouse must be divided. The statutory powers still operate in relation to the facts and property rights established in the particular proceedings.

Separate ownership: the 2025 decisions

Legal commentary by Kwame Boafo Akuffo, published by Dennislaw on 2 November 2025, quotes two subsequent Supreme Court judgments. The following discussion draws on that commentary and its account of the judgments; the source distinction is important.

A secondary report identifies Ayishetu Abdul Kadiri v Abdul Dwamenah ([2025] GHASC 16) as a 2025 Supreme Court of Ghana decision rejecting an automatic assumption that every asset acquired during marriage is jointly owned and recognising that spouses may have separate economic ownership.Source Because the supplied evidence is a report rather than the judgment, the proposition should be understood as the report’s account of the decision.

Separate secondary reporting identifies Mrs Abena Pokua v Yaw Kwakye ([2025] GHASC 45) as a 2025 Supreme Court of Ghana decision emphasising that spouses may maintain separate economic lives and that evidence must connect the disputed asset to joint acquisition.Source Again, this is a reported holding, not a quotation from or substitute for the primary judgment.

Read cautiously together, the authorities support an evidence-led approach. The 2012 decision addresses equitable treatment of jointly acquired property without limiting relevant contribution to a mathematical calculation of direct payments. The two 2025 reports caution against classifying property as joint solely because it was acquired during the marriage.

Preparing the evidence

For practical risk management, each disputed asset should be listed separately. The file may record the acquisition date, registered owner, purchase price, source of funds, loans, repayments, construction costs, current use and any asserted non-financial contribution. Documents may include conveyances, loan statements, bank records, receipts and correspondence.

A chronology can distinguish an asset acquired before marriage from later payments or improvements. It can also show whether funds came from a joint arrangement or from a separately documented source. Non-financial contributions should be explained concretely, including what was done, when it was done and how it related to the acquisition or household arrangements.

These are evidence-management suggestions, not a universal formula for classifying property. Classification and relief depend on the proven facts and the statutory powers applicable to the proceedings.

Practical takeaways

  • Prepare for dissolution and its consequences separately. Evidence of breakdown does not resolve property, maintenance or child-related questions.
  • List each asset individually. Record its acquisition history, debts and the basis on which an interest is claimed.
  • Explain contributions concretely. Preserve financial records and describe relevant non-financial support.
  • Avoid automatic assumptions. Neither marriage alone nor the name on a title replaces careful examination of the facts.

This article provides general information on Act 367 and the identified authorities as at 30 September 2026. This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Dissolution, property, maintenance and custody outcomes depend on the pleadings, evidence and circumstances of each matter.

For assistance from Ohene Gyan & Associates, contact our team.