The divorce battle that has gripped public attention is heading to the appellate courts as Joana Quaye, the former wife of Richard Nii Armah Quaye, has filed an appeal against a decision of the High Court that dissolved their marriage and distributed assets acquired during its subsistence.

Represented by former Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, the appellant is asking the Court of Appeal of Ghana to set aside the final orders delivered on January 20 by Justice Kofi Dorgu, Justice of the Court of Appeal, who sat as an Additional High Court Judge in the Family Court.

Ms Quaye’s lawyers set out five grounds of appeal, including the usual argument that “the orders of the High Court are against the weight of evidence.”

The appeal contends that the trial court misapplied Ghanaian law on marital property, asserting that almost all the immovable and movable properties claimed by the parties were acquired during the marriage and should therefore have been treated as marital property subject to equitable distribution.

The appellant takes particular issue with the exclusion of certain assets on the basis that her former husband did not intend them to be joint property, describing that conclusion as erroneous.

The former wife of the famous multi-millionaire also  attacks the award of one-third of the Dansoman House, GH₵300000 as financial relief, and GH₵5000 per month as maintenance of the three children of their marriage is also challenged by the former wife of Richard Nii Armah Quaye as being “manifestly inadequate, inequitable and unfair.”

In light of these, Ms Quaye is asking the Court of Appeal to ‘fairly’ redistribute all assets, movable and immovable, acquired during the marriage, including her ex-husband’s shares and beneficial interests in all companies.

Background

The High Court ruling now under appeal was delivered on 20 January 2026. Justice Dorgu distributed the marital property between Ms Quaye and Richard Nii Armah Quaye following the dissolution of the marriage.

In the ruling, Justice Dorgu sought to defend the orders, stating that the financial award of GH¢300,000 was, in part, to discourage “frequent divorces with the expectation of reaping huge monetary benefits.” He described the petitioner’s original demand of US$50 million as “ridiculous and without any basis,” emphasizing that “marriage is not an investment.”

Justice Dorgu questioned in his ruling if any investment could yield so much dividend or interest in a period of 10 or 20 years?”

He further noted that the petitioner had been “settled with 1/3 of the matrimonial home,” while the respondent was to bear responsibility for the children’s educational and health needs. In a statement that has since drawn attention, he added that “physically, the ex- wife is very much attractive and capable of remarrying anytime she feels like.”

The appeal now places both the distribution and the reasoning of the High Court before the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, with Ms Quaye seeking what she describes as a fair and equitable redistribution of all marital assets.