Court Awards Divorced Wife 50% Share of Tujereng Property, Affirms Matrimonial Rights Under Women’s Act

By Court Reporter

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court on Thursday declared a property located in Tujereng to be matrimonial property and ordered that former spouses Mariama Jammeh and Pa Famara Sanyang each hold an equal 50 percent equitable interest in the property.

The ruling, delivered in the case of Mariama Jammeh v. Pa Famara Sanyang, reinforces the principle that a spouse’s equitable interest in matrimonial property is not defeated merely because the property was funded primarily by the other spouse or registered in one party’s name.

The dispute arose following the dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Mariama Jammeh sought recognition of her interest in the Tujereng property, which she argued was acquired and developed during the marriage for their joint benefit. She also sought D286,000, which she claimed represented her financial contributions toward renovations at Kasumai Park Guesthouse, as well as D150,000 in legal and administrative expenses.

Sanyang opposed the claims, maintaining that he alone financed the acquisition of the Tujereng property and alleging that Jammeh improperly inserted her name into the title documents without his consent. He further challenged the validity of the property documents, citing alleged procedural defects, including missing witness signatures, lack of endorsements by local authorities, and the absence of evidence of Capital Gains Tax payment.

During the trial, Jammeh testified on her own behalf and called Fatou Ceesay as a witness. Ceesay told the court that she knew both parties as husband and wife, collected money from them for construction purposes, and supervised works at the Tujereng property. Sanyang testified as the sole witness for the defence.

In determining the matter, Justice Jaiteh considered whether the property qualified as matrimonial property under Section 43 of the Women’s Act, 2010; whether Jammeh was entitled to an equitable share despite the title-document objections; whether she had proven her monetary claim relating to Kasumai Park Guesthouse; and whether she was entitled to legal and administrative expenses.

The court found that the Tujereng property was acquired and developed during the subsistence of the marriage and for the common benefit of both spouses. Relying on Section 43 of the Women’s Act, Justice Jaiteh noted that the law guarantees women and men the right to own property jointly and provides for equitable sharing of matrimonial property upon separation or divorce.

The judge emphasized that matrimonial property disputes are not determined solely by legal title or by identifying which spouse contributed more money toward acquisition.

“Equity looks to substance rather than form,” Justice Jaiteh observed, stressing that courts must consider both financial and non-financial contributions made during a marriage.

The court attached significant weight to the testimony of Fatou Ceesay, whom Justice Jaiteh described as a credible witness. Her evidence that both parties contributed financially and were jointly involved in the construction of the property was not materially challenged during cross-examination.

Justice Jaiteh also noted that Sanyang admitted under cross-examination that the property was intended to serve as the family home. The court found this admission particularly significant, concluding that the property was acquired for the mutual benefit of the spouses rather than as an exclusively personal investment.

On the issue of the alleged defects in the title documents, the court held that the defendant’s objections were misplaced in the context of a matrimonial property dispute.

“This was not a contest between strangers over competing chains of title,” Justice Jaiteh stated. “It was a matrimonial property dispute between former spouses in which the Court was called upon to determine equitable interests arising from their marital relationship and their respective contributions.”

Citing both Gambian and English authorities, including Njie v. Ceesay, Pettitt v. Pettitt, Gissing v. Gissing, Grant v. Edwards, Eves v. Eves, and Stack v. Dowden, the judge reaffirmed that equitable ownership may arise independently of formal legal title through contribution, common intention, conduct, or reliance.

The court further found that inconsistencies in Sanyang’s testimony weakened his credibility. Justice Jaiteh noted that audio recordings tendered by the plaintiff allegedly contained statements by the defendant instructing her to include her name on the property documents. The defendant neither unequivocally denied making those statements nor challenged the authenticity of the recordings, repeatedly stating that he could not remember.

Additionally, the court observed that the defendant failed to call any independent witnesses or produce documentary evidence to support his claim of exclusive ownership.

Consequently, Justice Jaiteh held that Jammeh had established an equitable interest in the property and was entitled to a one-half beneficial share.

However, the court dismissed Jammeh’s separate claim for D286,000 relating to renovations at Kasumai Park Guesthouse. Justice Jaiteh held that claims for specific monetary sums must be strictly proved and found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish that the money was spent on the renovations or that the defendant was legally obligated to reimburse it.

The claim for D150,000 in legal and administrative expenses was similarly dismissed due to a lack of documentary evidence supporting the expenditure.

In the final orders, the court declared the Tujereng property matrimonial property and awarded each party a 50 percent equitable interest. The parties were directed to agree within 90 days either to sell the property and share the net proceeds equally or to obtain a valuation and compensate one party for the value of the other’s share.

Should they fail to reach an agreement within the stipulated period, either party may return to court for further orders, including valuation, sale, transfer, or the appointment of a court-supervised valuer or receiver.

While the plaintiff’s monetary claims were dismissed, Justice Jaiteh awarded costs in her favour, noting that she had substantially succeeded on the central issue of ownership and equitable entitlement to the matrimonial property.