The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling ordering a former couple to share the money from the sale of their house at Community 25, Tema, equally, even though their marriage was declared legally invalid.

According to a report by dennislawnews.com on October 15, 2026, the court ruled that both parties’ names appeared on the property documents, which was evidence that they jointly owned the house.

Inside the explosive court testimony in RNAQ case over forgery, ownership issues

It said this could only be overturned if there was sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

A three-member panel comprising Justices Eric Kyei Baffour, Lydia Osei Marfo and Dr Richmond Osei Hwere dismissed an appeal by Churchill Duse-Anthony, who had challenged an earlier Circuit Court ruling.

The court upheld the order for House No. A1, Emefs Estate, Community 25, Tema, to be valued and sold, with the proceeds shared equally between Duse-Anthony and his former partner, Anthony.

The report said the couple met in the United Kingdom in 2003 before relocating to Ghana. They went through a customary marriage ceremony on November 20, 2007, which was later registered.

However, the marriage was subsequently declared invalid because Anthony was still legally married to another man when she married Duse-Anthony.

The couple lived together in the house at Emefs Estate during their relationship. After the relationship broke down, they disagreed over who owned the property.

Anthony maintained that the house belonged to both of them. Duse-Anthony, however, insisted that he had paid for the property entirely with his own money.

He argued that including her name in the property documents did not mean she owned any part of the house.

The Circuit Court rejected his argument and ordered that the property be sold, with the proceeds shared equally. Duse-Anthony then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal explained that because the marriage was legally invalid, the house could not automatically be treated as property to be shared under the usual rules for dividing assets after a divorce.

Instead, the court had to determine who owned the property based on the available evidence and the parties’ legal rights.

The judges found that the property documents named both Duse-Anthony and Anthony as sub-lessees. This supported the position that they jointly owned the house.

The court said Duse-Anthony needed to provide convincing evidence to show that he alone owned the property and that Anthony’s name had been included for another reason.

However, he failed to provide sufficient documents, such as receipts, invoices or confirmation from the property developer, to prove that he had solely paid for the house.

RNAQ's ex-wife sues for 10% share of Bills Micro Credit profits since 2011

The ruling means the property must be valued and sold, with the proceeds divided equally between the former couple.

Anthony has also been given the first opportunity to buy the house within three months after it is valued.

Both parties are to share the cost of the valuation equally.

MAG/VPO

Inside Ghana’s Abandoned Engineering Powerhouse: What Went Wrong?