Divorce is usually a dispute between two people: a husband and a wife. Some divorces arise from adultery, with one spouse accusing the other of having an affair. Although Ghana’s Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), allows an alleged affair partner (the adulterer) to be joined to divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court held that a joinder is not automatic. The court must consider whether the adulterer’s participation is necessary in the circumstances of the case. In the Court’s own words, so-called “side chicks” or “side guys” whose only involvement is adultery with a married person have no place as parties. At best, they may be called as witnesses.
But what happens when the adulterer, the so-called “side chick”, claims to be a legal wife? What happens when the one who believed she was the wife may not be quite what she thought she was? Can the adulterer then step into the divorce proceedings as a party in her own right?
These questions came before the Supreme Court in Vida Yeboah v. Dr. Stephen Yeboah & Mercy Agyeiwaa (Civil Appeal No. J4/7/2026, judgment delivered on 29 April 2026). In this case, the legal analysis is just as intriguing as the facts themselves.
The Marriage Behind the “Affair”
Vida Yeboah and Dr. Stephen Yeboah married under customary law in 1990. They later celebrated a marriage under the Marriage Ordinance on 30th January 2014. Eventually, there was a serious breakdown in their relationship.
According to Vida Yeboah’s 2019 divorce petition at the High Court, Agona Swedru, Stephen committed adultery with Mercy Agyeiwaa. Vida alleged that Stephen himself described his relationship with Mercy as a customary marriage. In his answer to the petition, Stephen denied the adultery allegations. He also denied that the marriage had broken down beyond reconciliation. Vida had reason to reject the customary marriage claim because her ordinance marriage with Stephen was monogamous. Therefore, any subsequent customary marriage was void and amounted to adultery or potential bigamy.
Vida also complained that Stephen moved his lover, Mercy, from Kasoa into an apartment at Gomoa Oguaakrom, the same town where they lived. In fact, this apartment was apparently only twenty (20) feet away from their matrimonial home. She also said that, for over three (3) months, Stephen had abandoned their matrimonial home to go and live with Mercy. Furthermore, he stopped maintaining her and their children. Stephen denied these allegations.
The Intervener
Sometime in June 2021, while the matter was still pending, the case took an unexpected turn. Mercy Agyeiwaa applied to join the divorce proceedings. She was accused of interfering in another woman’s marriage. This was a serious moral indictment, if true. She wanted to clear her name and set the record straight.
Mercy Agyeiwaa denied being an adulterer. She claimed to be a true wife. She married Stephen under Akan customary law in July 2012. Her evidence? She produced photographs of a customary wedding ceremony. They showed her appearing as the bride and Stephen as the groom. The pictures also showed witnesses present and the typical things you would see at a customary marriage event.
More Revelations
Curiously, Mercy said Vida knew her as a second wife. Mercy Agyeiwaa claimed that she and Vida had already acknowledged each other as the two (2) wives of Stephen. She produced some more photographs from an awards ceremony at Lucky Herbal Clinic in March 2014. That was barely six weeks after Vida’s ordinance marriage in January 2014. In these pictures, Mercy and Vida were seen seated together beside Stephen, who was invited to receive an award at the ceremony. Mercy claimed that the two (2) women sat beside him in the front row of the high table as his wives. That was where the photograph was taken. On its face, this was a striking picture.
The Heart of the Matter
Essentially, Mercy’s case was that her customary marriage with Stephen in 2012 predated Vida’s ordinance marriage in 2014. Therefore, she was Stephen’s second wife under customary law. In effect, Vida’s ordinance marriage with Stephen was rather the void one. Even so, Vida’s own customary marriage from 1990 would not necessarily fail with the ordinance one. Customary law permits a man to marry more than one wife. If Mercy were right, Vida might remain Stephen’s first customary wife, but not his only, monogamous wife.
Vida vehemently challenged Mercy’s side of the case. Vida maintained that she was Stephen’s only wife. She further insisted that she had never accepted Mercy as a co-wife. She rejected the customary marriage pictures. Vida claimed that many people took pictures with her husband at many ceremonies and events. Her point was that pictures alone would not prove marriage or her knowledge of the marriage.
The Other Side of the Matter
In addition to all this, Vida was claiming a 50% share of the marital properties as the lawful monogamous wife. Mercy said all those properties were acquired with her contributions from her own business enterprises. She argued that Vida could not claim 50% without demonstrating her contribution. Mercy demanded recognition of her interest in the properties.
The case had transformed from a divorce-adultery matter into something more complicated. Generally, the law would not automatically join a “side-chick” or “side boy” to a case. However, she was not just a side-chick; she claimed to be a second wife. Secondly, would Vida’s divorce petition survive if there was no adultery but only a second wife? These were the core questions the Court had to contend with. It was no longer about a mistress trying to intervene in a divorce.
What the High Court Said
The High Court’s reasoning was very basic. Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act says a person named as an adulterer may be joined to the divorce petition. Under the High Court rules (Order 65 rule 7 of C.I. 47), if the petitioner does not join the adulterer, then the adulterer may directly intervene in the petition. This was what Mercy was trying to accomplish. The High Court sided with her. In July 2021, the High Court judge decided to add her to the suit so that all the issues could be finally determined. Vida was not pleased and appealed to the Court of Appeal.
What the Court of Appeal Said
The Court of Appeal had a different view of the matter. The panel of judges focused on the central question in a divorce petition: Has the marriage broken down beyond reconciliation?
They concluded that Mercy’s presence in the suit was not necessary to answer that question. They disagreed with the High Court judge. Only her evidence was required to help answer the divorce question. Mercy’s presence as a party was not needed. It would only create further conflict and a complicated three-sided divorce case. In May 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling and decided that Mercy could not be joined to the case. The Court awarded GH¢20,000 in costs against Mercy.
What the Supreme Court Said
At this point, we know these two women are not timid souls. They will fight for what they desire, so, as expected, Mercy appealed to the Supreme Court. That was where the final decision on this issue was made. The Supreme Court considered the issue deeply. It went beyond just adultery or divorce. The judges had three (3) main lines of reasoning.
Adultery Is at the Heart of the Case
First, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal had framed the question too narrowly. A divorce may only be granted if the petitioner proves one of the grounds listed in section 2(1) of Act 367. Adultery is one of those grounds. Vida relied on it, and she named Mercy. Whether Stephen committed adultery with Mercy was therefore not a side issue. It went to the heart of Vida’s case. If Mercy’s customary marriage was valid, a further question would arise: was the 2014 ordinance marriage itself valid? On these facts, the Court held that Mercy’s presence was necessary, not merely useful for evidence.
Judicial Discretion
Second, the decision to join an adulterer was at the discretion of the High Court Judge hearing the case. The judge had to decide whether joining the alleged adulterer was necessary. Once that discretion had been exercised by the trial judge, it should not be interfered with without good justification. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had not sufficiently justified its interference with the High Court’s exercise of that discretion.
A Personal Stake
Third, Mercy was not merely an alleged adulterer seeking to intervene. She claimed to have a valid customary marriage with Stephen and a personal stake in the disputed properties. She had also been publicly named as an adulterer in court papers. The whole town knew about the case. The Court noted that this label carries social stigma. She was no busybody for wanting to clear her name. The Supreme Court said she deserved an opportunity to prove and defend her claims. She had provided enough prima facie evidence for the Court to join her to the case.
On these grounds, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the High Court’s order joining Mercy to the suit.
The Supreme Court then warned that its ruling did not settle the issue of divorce, the validity of the first or second marriage, or any of the other claims. The only question it answered was whether Mercy could join the suit. This question was answered in the affirmative.
If you are wondering what Stephen had to say to all this, he did not participate in the appeals. He left the two women to fight it out.
What This Case Teaches Us About Divorce in Ghana
This case is fascinating. It is almost like a Nollywood movie. It offers valuable lessons about the law on divorce in Ghana and why every divorce case is unique. The fact that a friend’s divorce was settled in a certain way does not mean it will be the same for another person.
An alleged adulterer can become a party to divorce proceedings in Ghana. Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 (Act 367), allows the person accused of adultery to be made a party to the divorce case. The High Court rules (Order 65 rule 7 of C.I. 47) also allow that person to intervene. The person can be added by their accuser or can apply to join on their own.
However, the first lesson from this case is that an allegation of adultery will not automatically grant the right to join the divorce case. The judge has the discretion to decide whether the presence of the adulterer will add to or detract from the divorce case. The circumstances of each intervener will be different.
An Exception To The Rule
The Supreme Court drew a clear line. A person whose only involvement is adultery with a married person has no place as a party. At best, that person may be called as a witness. In this case, that position had to evolve because three things carved out the exception; The alleged adulterer produced tentative evidence of a customary marriage to the respondent. That marriage, if proved, could affect the validity of the marriage being dissolved. And the alleged adulterer claimed an interest in the matrimonial property. The Court accepted these exceptions to the rule.
Secondly, the legal validity of a marriage is important and can easily dismantle a couple’s reality. The competing claims between Vida and Mercy were crucial. Depending on which side successfully proved its case, the conclusion will affect both women, their children, property rights, inheritance rights, and every aspect of their relationship.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court’s decision illustrates the limits of appellate interference with judicial discretion. An appellate court cannot simply reverse a discretionary decision because it disagrees or has a different view. Any reversal must be justified in law or on the evidence.
Finally, and most importantly, the right to participate in a case is different from winning that case. The Supreme Court allowed Mercy to join the proceedings. It did not declare her the lawful wife or determine ownership of the disputed properties. Those questions remained for the trial High Court to determine on the evidence.
Conclusion: When Reality Beats Fiction
Perhaps the most fascinating part of this case is the reversal of roles. The woman accused of being a mistress insisted that she was a second wife. The wife who petitioned for divorce insisted that she was the only lawful wife. Both women claimed an interest in the same man and the same properties. Yet, at this stage, the courts have not finally determined whose claims will succeed.
The case reminds us that family disputes rarely fit neatly into the stories we tell about them. What begins as adultery may turn into something completely different. The first person to tell their story always seems right until the opponent provides an answer. This is why judicial decisions are based on evidence, not on people’s claims.
For now, Mercy has secured her place in the proceedings. Whether she can establish the claims that brought her there remains another matter.
We are working to obtain the High Court’s judgment on the substantive issues. We will update this article when that judgment becomes available.
Next Steps: Secure Your Rights
This article is part of our full explanation on the law on divorce in Ghana. Visit the page to understand your rights at every stage of a divorce. You may also select what to do next from one of the options below.
