BREAKING: Ex wife of Richard Nii Armah Quaye files appeal against divorce judgment
The highly publicized divorce case between Joana Quaye and her former husband, Richard Nii Armah Quaye, is moving to the appellate courts after Ms. Quaye filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision that dissolved their marriage and divided their assets.
Represented by former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, Ms. Quaye is requesting the Court of Appeal of Ghana to overturn the final orders issued on January 20 by Justice Kofi Dorgu, who acted as an Additional High Court Judge in the Family Court.
The appeal outlines five grounds, including the claim that the High Court’s decision was “against the weight of evidence.” It argues that the trial court misapplied Ghanaian marital property laws, noting that nearly all the movable and immovable assets acquired during the marriage should have been treated as marital property subject to fair division.
Ms. Quaye particularly contests the exclusion of certain assets based on her former husband’s alleged intent not to share them, calling this conclusion incorrect.
She also challenges the award of only one-third ownership of the Dansoman house, the GH₵300,000 financial relief, and the GH₵5,000 monthly maintenance for their three children, describing these amounts as “manifestly inadequate, inequitable, and unfair.”
Accordingly, Ms. Quaye is seeking a fair redistribution of all assets—both movable and immovable—including her ex-husband’s shares and interests in various companies.
Background
The contested High Court ruling, delivered on January 20, 2026, by Justice Dorgu, divided the couple’s assets after dissolving their marriage.
In his judgment, Justice Dorgu defended the financial award of GH₵300,000 partly as a deterrent against “frequent divorces with the expectation of reaping huge monetary benefits.” He dismissed Ms. Quaye’s initial claim of US$50 million as “ridiculous and without any basis,” emphasizing that “marriage is not an investment.”
The judge questioned whether any investment could realistically yield such returns in 10 or 20 years.
He also noted that Ms. Quaye received a one-third share of the matrimonial home, while Mr. Quaye was responsible for the children’s education and health expenses. His remark that the former wife was “physically very attractive and capable of remarrying anytime she feels like” sparked public attention.
The appeal now challenges both the asset division and the High Court’s reasoning, with Ms. Quaye seeking what she calls a just and equitable redistribution of all marital property.
