Legal practitioner Kwame Boafo Akuffo has applauded two recent Supreme Court decisions on family law, describing them as landmark rulings that bring much-needed clarity to how property ownership is determined during marriage.

According to him, the judgments in Ayishetu Abdul Kadiri v. Abdul Dwamenah and Mrs Abena Pokua v. Yaw Kwakye have reshaped the long-held assumption that all property acquired during marriage automatically qualifies as marital property.

Mr Akuffo explained that in the Ayishetu Abdul Kadiri case, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of spouses to own property independently, even while married.

This position was further strengthened in the later Abena Pokua decision, where the Court clearly rejected the presumption that assets acquired during the subsistence of a marriage must be treated as matrimonial property.

He noted that the Abena Pokua ruling, delivered by a panel that included Justices Lovelace-Johnson and Asiedu—both of whom sat on the earlier Ayishetu case—marked a departure from the earlier interpretation of what constitutes marital property.

From the two decisions, Mr Akuffo said two key legal principles now stand out. First, spouses have a constitutional right to own property exclusively, meaning each party may pursue a separate economic life during marriage.

Second, assets acquired during marriage no longer automatically carry the presumption of being matrimonial property.

In his view, this shift in judicial thinking allows couples greater freedom to structure their financial arrangements.

He explained that spouses can now enter into clear agreements outlining how properties will be acquired and owned during the marriage, including arrangements that exclude joint ownership.

“Parties can expressly agree to acquire properties independently, and such agreements can even specify the properties involved,” he said, adding that this significantly reduces disputes during divorce proceedings, except in cases involving fraud or other vitiating factors.

Mr Akuffo, a partner at Kwame Akuffo and Co, described these agreements as effectively introducing a recognised framework for prenuptial arrangements within Ghana’s legal system.

He noted that such agreements could be executed before marriage and would carry strong legal weight in court.

He further observed that the Supreme Court has now firmly moved away from treating property acquired during marriage as presumptively marital, a development he urged legal practitioners to carefully consider when drafting pleadings in matrimonial disputes.

“These decisions have resolved the uncertainty that previously surrounded property distribution during divorce,” he said, adding that they provide a clear framework for distinguishing between jointly owned and individually owned assets.

Mr Akuffo, who was part of the legal team that represented Nana Akufo-Addo in the 2013 Presidential Election Petition, encouraged individuals planning to marry to educate themselves on their property rights and obligations.

According to him, the rulings promote fairness, predictability and transparency, allowing couples to make informed financial decisions and better plan for their future, both during marriage and in the event of its dissolution.