Supreme Court

The petitioner filed for divorce and sought an equal share of assets acquired during the marriage.  At the time of marriage, neither party owned any property.

This case concerns the sharing of spousal property upon divorce. On 22 December 1986, the High Court dissolved the marriage between the husband (“H”) and his wife (“W”) on a petition and cross-petition for divorce filed by H and W, respectively. Subsequently, the Court heard the parties’ claims for ancillary relief in which both H and W claimed ownership of the same house. The High Court found that W was the sole owner of the house.

This case concerns the ability of women to pass on their life interest in an estate to their children under customary law.  In this case, the deceased, the grandfather of the appellants, died intestate. According to the customary law of the Ga people of Osu, the deceased’s female descendants only have a life interest in the estate rather than ownership rights.  The first respondent, having outlived his siblings, claimed the right as the head of the family to sell one piece of the estate’s property.

In a proceeding following a divorce, the appellant wife argued that she had married her husband under a regime of separate property. The court determined that a couple married under such a regime can only switch to a community property regime upon agreement between the parties, which had not occurred in this case.

This divorce case involved a couple that was married for 25 years. The petitioner-wife filed for divorce due to unreasonable behavior and adultery. She requested custody of their minor child, property rights as the court deemed fit, and that the respondent-husband vacate the marital home, pay a dissolution settlement, and cover court costs. The respondent, who was the family’s primary source of financial support, funded the construction of the parties’ marital home.

The defendant invited a 16-year-old girl for a walk to a park, but refused to take her home when she requested. He instead took her to another residence and, along with other individuals, sexually assaulted her using force, insults and intimidation. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for rape.

The petitioners sued the defendants for operating “mehadrin” bus lines for orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews.  Petitioners argue that these bus lines discriminate based on gender by allowing men to board and sit in the front of the bus while requiring that women board by the rear door, sit in the back, and dress modestly.  Petitioners claim these restrictions violate their fundamental and constitutional rights to equality, dignity, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience.  Petitioners refused to comply with the gender restrictions, which respondents claimed were not com

The defendant (a Private in the army) met the victim (a 10-year-old girl in the 4th grade) through an online gaming site. While video chatting, the defendant repeatedly requested that victim show her body from the waist down. Despite expressing her unwillingness, the victim showed her private parts on several occasions to Defendant while video chatting. The military prosecutor indicted Defendant on the charge of sexual abuse under the former Child Welfare Act. Two courts acquitted the Defendant and the military prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.

In this case, the defendant deliberately struck his wife several times on the head and torso, causing minor injuries and a short-term health disorder.  The court of first instance closed the case due to the victim's withdrawal of charges (pursuant to

In this case, the defendant grabbed his wife by the hands and pushed her in the chest, after which he punched her once in the face. The victim suffered “light bodily injuries, which caused a short-term health disorder” in violation of Part 2 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code.