Is Marriage an Investment? A Legal Opinion on Joana Quaye v Richard Nii Armah Quaye

The recent decision of the Ghanaian High Court (Family Court ‘2’) in Joana Quaye v Richard Nii Armah Quaye, delivered on 20th January 2026, has generated significant public debate—not for the dissolution of the marriage itself, which is legally routine—but for the court’s pronouncement that “marriage is not an investment.”

While the dissolution of the marriage raises no novel legal concerns, this particular statement has attracted scrutiny for its conceptual and jurisprudential implications. With respect, the statement risks oversimplifying the legal and socio-economic realities of marriage, particularly within the framework of Ghanaian family law.

Marriage and the Concept of Investment in Law

In strict legal terms, marriage is not a commercial enterprise governed by profit-making motives. However, to conclude that marriage is not an “investment” at all may be an overcorrection. Modern matrimonial jurisprudence—especially under Article 22 of the 1992 Constitution and judicial interpretation in cases such as Mensah v Mensah, Adjei v Adjei—recognises that both spouses contribute to the acquisition of marital property, whether through direct financial input or indirect contributions such as domestic labour, emotional support, and child-rearing.

Thus, while marriage is not an investment in the commercial sense, it undeniably involves the investment of resources—both tangible and intangible. The law itself acknowledges this reality by protecting spousal contributions that are not easily quantifiable. In that regard, describing marriage as entirely divorced from the concept of investment may not accurately reflect the evolving jurisprudence on marital property rights.

Property Distribution: Intent vs Contribution

A critical issue arising from the decision is the court’s refusal to settle a property located at East Legon on the petitioner, Joana Quaye, on the basis that the respondent did not intend for the property to be jointly owned. The court further relied on the petitioner’s limited knowledge of the property.

With respect, this reasoning raises concerns. Ghanaian courts have consistently emphasised that the distribution of marital property is not determined solely by the intention of the title holder, but by the totality of contributions made during the marriage. The question ought not to be whether the respondent intended joint ownership, but whether the property was acquired during the subsistence of the marriage and whether the petitioner contributed, directly or indirectly, to its acquisition or maintenance.

The emphasis on the petitioner’s lack of detailed knowledge of the property may also be problematic. In many marriages, especially within the Ghanaian context, one spouse may manage financial affairs, while the other contributes in non-financial ways. To penalise a spouse for limited knowledge risks undermining the principle of equitable distribution.

Denial of Ownership and the Mamprobi Properties

The court’s refusal to distribute certain properties at Mamprobi, reportedly on the basis that the respondent denied joint ownership, similarly raises evidentiary and legal concerns. A mere denial, without more, should not be determinative. The court is enjoined to evaluate evidence holistically, including patterns of acquisition, use, and contribution.

If indeed the properties were acquired during the marriage, the court ought to interrogate the surrounding circumstances more rigorously rather than rely predominantly on the respondent’s assertion.

Alimony and Financial Relief

On the issue of alimony, the court correctly outlined its historical purpose—to prevent financial hardship, particularly where one spouse lacks independent means. However, having established that the petitioner was unemployed during the proceedings and had only recently secured employment, the adequacy of the GH₵300,000 award warrants closer scrutiny.

Alimony is not merely symbolic; it is intended to ensure fairness and, where appropriate, maintain a standard of living reasonably commensurate with the marriage. Where the respondent possesses substantial financial capacity, the quantum of support should reflect both need and ability to pay. A more robust engagement with these factors would better serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion

The decision in Joana Quaye v Richard Nii Armah Quaye highlights an important tension in Ghanaian family law: the balance between legal formalism and the lived realities of marriage. While the court was within its rights to reject an excessive financial claim, its broader pronouncement that “marriage is not an investment” may inadvertently diminish the recognised value of spousal contributions.

Ultimately, marriage may not be an investment in the strict commercial sense, but it undeniably involves the commitment of resources—financial, emotional, and physical—which the law must continue to recognise and protect. Any approach that underestimates these contributions risks undermining the constitutional promise of equitable distribution upon the dissolution of marriage.