A dominant narrative on social media suggests that the Court “allowed a side chick to win”.
That perception, though understandable given the emotions surrounding the case, does not reflect what the Court actually decided.
As lawyers who specialise in family law, including matrimonial, customary law and succession matters, this authorial team considers it important to explain the legal basis of the judgment and correct the growing public misunderstanding.
The judgment delivered on Friday, November 28, 2025, does not turn on sympathy, morality or social preference. It turns squarely on evidence.
What the Court actually applied
At the heart of the decision is a basic legal principle: the law of evidence. Once that law is applied, the outcome depends on what a party is able to prove before the Court.
Ghana’s marriage regime is plural. The law recognises customary marriages, which are potentially polygamous; Islamic marriages, which permit controlled polygamy; and civil marriages under the Marriages Act, 1884–1995 (CAP 127), which are strictly monogamous. Foreign civil marriages, celebrated outside Ghana, may also be recognised, provided they are proved to the satisfaction of a Ghanaian court.
Each type of marriage carries distinct legal consequences. In this case, the Plaintiff relied on an alleged civil marriage contracted in Germany and asserted that it made her the sole lawful wife of the deceased.
That claim imposed a clear legal burden on her.
Courts do not decide cases on sentiment
In civil proceedings, including family and marriage disputes, the party who makes a claim bears the burden of proof. The standard is the balance of probabilities, meaning the evidence must show that a claim is more likely than not.
Personal suffering, duration of cohabitation or public sympathy, however compelling, do not determine judicial outcomes. What matters is admissible and credible evidence.
To succeed, the Plaintiff had to clearly establish the existence of a valid foreign civil marriage and show that it subsisted at the time of the deceased’s death.
Proving a foreign marriage is not automatic
A central issue in the case was not morality but proof.
Under Ghanaian law, foreign law is treated as a question of fact. A party who relies on it must prove both the content of that foreign law and the validity of the act done under it. This is usually achieved through expert testimony and properly authenticated documents.
In this instance, the Plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on German marriage law and did not properly authenticate the marriage documents relied upon. A Ghanaian court cannot assume the validity of a foreign marriage based solely on an extract of a certificate.
This evidentiary gap proved critical.
Foreign documents require strict authentication
Ghana’s Evidence Act imposes clear requirements for the admissibility of foreign public documents, including marriage certificates. Such documents must be certified by the issuing authority and countersigned by the appropriate Ghanaian diplomatic mission or recognised official.
According to the judgment, the documents tendered before the Court suffered from serious defects. They lacked proper authentication, showed inconsistencies in dates and signatures, and were not confirmed by the Ghana Mission in Germany.
Faced with these deficiencies, the Court was legally bound to reject the documents. This rejection, rather than any moral judgment, explains why the Plaintiff’s case failed.
Assumptions have no place in Court
To be declared the sole surviving spouse, the Plaintiff had to prove three things: that a valid civil marriage existed, that it had not been dissolved, and that its monogamous nature legally excluded any other marriage.
Once the existence of the civil marriage was not proved, the remaining claims collapsed naturally. The Court did not pronounce on whether a customary marriage ever existed between the Plaintiff and the deceased. It simply found that the civil marriage relied upon had not been established.
Customary marriage remains valid
Ghanaian law fully recognises customary marriage as a legitimate form of marriage. It is not inferior to civil marriage; it is simply different. Unless displaced by a proven monogamous civil marriage, customary marriage remains legally valid and may coexist with other customary unions.
This distinction lies at the core of the public misunderstanding. The inability to prove a foreign civil marriage meant the law could not exclude evidence of a customary marriage involving another woman.
Widowhood rites follow custom, not emotion
Widowhood rites are governed by applicable customary law and depend on the recognition of marital status under that custom. The Court did not assess emotional attachment or personal devotion. It assessed legal status as established by evidence.
A case about evidence, not endorsement
The suggestion that a “side chick won” may be sensational, but it misrepresents the judgment.
What occurred is straightforward. A party relied on a foreign civil marriage. The law demanded strict proof. That proof was not provided. Without evidence of a monogamous marriage, the Court could not legally bar a customary marriage claim.
This was an evidentiary failure, not a moral endorsement.
Lessons for the public
The judgment offers important lessons. Persons who marry abroad must ensure their documents are properly certified for use in Ghana. Those who rely on foreign law must prove it with evidence, not assumptions. Customary marriage remains valid and enforceable. Courts apply the law, not public sentiment.
It is also important to clarify that the judgment does not alter the legal incidents of Christian or ordinance marriage, including its monogamous nature. Such marriages, properly proved, remain exclusive under Ghanaian law.
As Christian lawyers, the authors urge stakeholders not to misinterpret the decision as diluting this principle. Christians are encouraged to continue respecting the legal and moral foundations of Christian marriage as reflected in Ghana’s laws.
By understanding what the Court actually decided, public discourse can move away from sensationalism towards legal literacy, which remains essential for informed national conversations.
GNA
