Ex-wife of billionaire RNAQ goes to Court of Appeal, seeks equitable share of assets
Mrs. Joana Quaye has formally filed a notice of appeal against a High Court ruling delivered on 20 January 2026, arguing that the judgment failed to align with Ghana’s constitutional and jurisprudential framework on equitable distribution of marital property.
The former spouse of businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) has escalated her matrimonial challenge to the Court of Appeal, seeking a recalibration of asset distribution following their divorce.
At the core of the dispute is a portfolio of assets comprising real estate holdings, company shares, and other movable properties allegedly acquired during the subsistence of the marriage.
The appellant contends that these assets were not properly classified or evaluated as marital property, thereby distorting the fairness of the final orders.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Dorgu JA, awarded her financial relief of GHC 300,000 instead of her GHC 50 million claim in the first part of the case.
However, Mrs. Joana Quaye, in her notice of appeal, argues that the judgment failed to align with Ghana’s constitutional and jurisprudential framework on equitable distribution of marital property.
The notice of appeal, signed by Godfred Yeboah Dame, alleges that the trial court did not fully acknowledge her contributions to the marriage, including financial support, household help, and management roles that helped build their assets and grow their businesses.
A critical dimension of the appeal is the treatment of corporate interests. Mrs. Quaye argues that several companies linked to RNAQ were jointly established during the marriage and functioned as vehicles for wealth creation within the matrimonial ecosystem.
She is, therefore, inviting the appellate court to lift the corporate veil and include those interests in the distributable marital pool.
The appeal also questions why certain valuable properties, such as homes in desirable areas, were left out of the distribution, as she believes they were purchased during the marriage but were incorrectly considered separate property due to faulty legal reasoning.
The appellant argues that the High Court's financial relief is inadequate compared to the total asset base and economic realities.
She is consequently seeking orders to set aside the High Court’s decision and to grant her an equitable share of all assets—both movable and immovable—acquired during the marriage, including beneficial interests in corporate entities.
The matter is yet to be set for a hearing.
