ALHAJI ABDUL RASHID vs. NANA YAA KONADU

The parties, both Ghanaians, contracted an Ordinance marriage in 1977 and had two children. In 2009, the wife petitioned for dissolution on the ground that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation, asserting that apart from equal shares in Nayak Company Limited, they had not jointly acquired property. The husband admitted the breakdown but contended that numerous landed properties and business interests had been jointly acquired during the marriage through their joint commercial ventures, including Rashida Limited and Nayak Limited. A central controversy concerned a handwritten document titled “Property Declaration by Alhaji Abdul Rashid” (Exhibit E), by which the husband purported to cede several properties and business interests to the wife. The trial court treated Exhibit E as valid and binding and awarded the listed properties accordingly. On appeal, the husband challenged that conclusion, arguing that Exhibit E did not satisfy the legal requirements for conveyance of landed property and that the properties should instead be distributed as jointly acquired matrimonial assets. Portion of judgment: opening factual narrative beginning “The facts leading to this appeal are that the parties, both Ghanaians, got married under the Ordinance in 1977…” and the discussion of Exhibit E beginning “The petitioner testified that in the course of the marriage the respondent signed a document…”