Joana Quaye, former wife of businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ), has filed an urgent application at the High Court in Accra seeking to prevent the sale or transfer of company shares and luxury assets. The application aims to freeze properties and vehicles pending the determination of an appeal concerning their divorce settlement, ensuring potential assets remain available should she be awarded a larger share.
Background of the Dispute
The legal battle stems from the divorce proceedings between Joana Quaye and Richard Nii Armah Quaye, which began after a relationship that started in 2002 and culminated in marriage in 2010. Mrs. Quaye alleges significant contributions to the establishment and growth of their shared businesses, including the precursor to what is now Bills Micro Credit.
According to an affidavit filed by her legal team, Dame & Partners, Mrs. Quaye claims she sacrificed her own educational and career pursuits to support her husband’s business ambitions. She asserts that she provided crucial financial backing, including seed capital from her personal savings, to launch their microfinance venture in 2010, the same year they married.
Allegations of Financial Contributions and Exclusion
Mrs. Quaye’s affidavit details a history of joint financial management, including opening a joint bank account before their marriage and joint investments. She states that funds from a matured investment in 2008 were used to finance Mr. Quaye’s studies in the UK. Upon his return in 2009, she claims they explored business opportunities together, leading to the establishment of Quick Micro Credit and Investment Limited, later renamed Bills Micro Credit.
She asserts that both she and Mr. Quaye were shareholders and the sole directors of this company. However, around 2021, Mrs. Quaye alleges she was removed as a director and shareholder without her knowledge or consent, marking a pivotal point in the marital financial dispute.
Scope of Disputed Assets
The application seeks to freeze a comprehensive list of assets allegedly acquired during the marriage. This includes shares in prominent companies such as Quick Credit, Quick Angels, Waterfall Engineering, Tigon Entertainment, Ridge Medical Centre, and CEQA Foods. These entities are described as forming the foundation of Mr. Quaye’s wealth, from which other ventures were financed.
Beyond company shares, the application also targets significant real estate holdings and luxury vehicles. Properties in affluent areas like Trasacco Estates and East Legon are listed, alongside assets in Dansoman and Mamprobi. The list of vehicles includes high-value items such as a Rolls-Royce Phantom, Bentley Coupe, Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon, Range Rover Vogue, Range Rover Velar, and Lexus 4×4 vehicles.
Legal Arguments and Procedural Concerns
Mrs. Quaye’s legal argument centers on the principle that assets acquired during the marriage constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution. She contends that the businessman has previously transferred her shares in Quick Credit without her consent, raising fears of further disposals.
The affidavit also includes serious allegations regarding the breakdown of the marriage, citing infidelity and physical violence. Mrs. Quaye claims that her attempts to seek redress through the Ghana Police Service were allegedly hampered by interference from influential individuals connected to Mr. Quaye.
Furthermore, Mrs. Quaye has raised concerns about the divorce judgment delivered on January 20, 2026. She points to a significant delay in obtaining the full written judgment, which allegedly exceeded the constitutional period for filing an appeal. She also notes discrepancies, suggesting the existence of two versions of the judgment—one detailing orders and another providing reasons—which could complicate her appeal.
Implications and Future Outlook
The core of Mrs. Quaye’s current legal action is to prevent the dissipation of assets. She warns that without an injunction, any successful appeal on her claim to a larger share of the marital wealth could result in an “empty legal shell,” rendering a favorable judgment meaningless.
This case highlights the complexities of asset division in high-profile divorces, particularly when significant business empires are involved. The court’s decision on the injunction will be crucial in determining the immediate future of these assets and will set a precedent for how marital wealth accumulated through joint efforts, but later exclusively controlled by one party, is handled in divorce proceedings. Observers will be watching closely to see how the Court of Appeal addresses the alleged procedural irregularities and the substantive claims regarding asset entitlement.
Leave a Reply