From the foregoing, it is evident that for a property to qualify as a matrimonial home, there must be both physical presence and an intention to make the place fixed and permanent. The facts of this case, however, reveal that the Appellant has never lived in the property. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record indicating that the parties — who were resident in the United Kingdom — ever intended to make the Tetegu property their permanent home. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the property in dispute constitutes a matrimonial home or matrimonial property.
AMMA OWUSU SARPONG VRS KOJO OWUSU SARPONG CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/77/2023 [2025] SLR (SC) 20 · Supreme Court · 2025 · ACKAAH-BOAFO JSC
Read it in the judgment