Private legal practitioner, Joseph Ackah-Blay, has provided an interpretation of a recent Supreme Court decision which clarifies when a person accused of being involved with a married partner can be joined as a party in divorce proceedings.
According to him, the Supreme Court of Ghana has settled a recurring legal question in divorce cases: whether individuals named as “the other woman” or “the other man” in a divorce petition must automatically be joined as parties to the case.
He explained that in its ruling in Vida Yeboah v Dr Stephen Yeboah & Mercy Agyeiwaa, decided on April 29, 2026, the apex court held that such persons are not automatically entitled to be joined, stressing that joinder depends on whether they have a legal interest in the matter.
The case originated when Vida Yeboah filed for divorce at the High Court in Agona Swedru against her husband, Dr Stephen Yeboah, citing adultery and naming Mercy Agyeiwaa as the alleged third party involved in the marriage breakdown.
She further claimed that her husband had relocated Mercy to a flat near the matrimonial home, strengthening her allegation of an ongoing relationship.
Mr Ackah-Blay noted that Mercy Agyeiwaa subsequently applied to be joined to the proceedings, insisting she was not merely an alleged mistress but a customary wife of Dr Yeboah, allegedly married on July 15, 2012—before the couple’s 2014 ordinance marriage.
He added that she supported her claim with photographs and witness accounts of the customary ceremony and also asserted financial contributions to properties subject to division in the divorce.
While the High Court initially allowed her joinder, the Court of Appeal later reversed that decision, describing her inclusion as potentially complicating the proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately restored her status in the case and ordered a retrial at the High Court, reasoning that her competing claims raised substantive legal issues that could not be ignored.
Mr Ackah-Blay explained that the court was careful to stress that the ruling should not be interpreted as allowing all alleged “side partners” to become parties in divorce suits.
He said the court made it clear that individuals commonly referred to as “side chicks” or “side guys” generally have no standing in divorce proceedings unless they can demonstrate a legal interest beyond the alleged relationship.
According to him, the court further emphasized that under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971, joinder is discretionary rather than automatic, as the law uses the word “may” instead of “shall.”
He concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the fact that Mercy Agyeiwaa raised two substantive legal issues—a competing customary marriage and a claim to marital property—which, if proven, could directly affect the outcome of the divorce proceedings.
Source: www.kumasimail.com
