A ruling by Ghana’s Supreme Court is drawing fresh attention to the complicated role third parties can play in divorce disputes, especially when questions of marriage, property and legal recognition collide.
The country’s highest court has clarified that people accused of having affairs with married individuals, often referred to informally as “side chicks” or “side guys”, are not automatically entitled to become parties in divorce proceedings. Their involvement, the court said, depends entirely on whether they raise substantial legal issues tied directly to the case.
Legal practitioner Joseph Ackah-Blay highlighted the decision in a May 6, 2026 post on X while discussing the case of Vida Yeboah v Dr Stephen Yeboah & Mercy Agyeiwaa.
“The court answered: not always. Sometimes yes,” he wrote in response to the question of whether a person identified as “the other woman” in a divorce petition must necessarily be joined to the proceedings.
The dispute dates back to April 2019, when Vida Yeboah filed for divorce at the High Court in Agona Swedru, accusing her husband, Dr Stephen Yeboah, of adultery. In her petition, she identified Mercy Agyeiwaa as the woman allegedly involved in the affair.
According to court filings cited by Ackah-Blay, Vida alleged that Dr Yeboah had moved Mercy from Kasoa into a nearby flat close to the matrimonial home in Gomoa Oguaakrom.
But the case quickly evolved beyond allegations of infidelity.
Mercy Agyeiwaa applied to join the proceedings, arguing that she was not simply a romantic partner but Dr Yeboah’s customary wife. She claimed the customary marriage took place on July 15, 2012, two years before Dr Yeboah’s 2014 ordinance marriage to Vida.
“She said she was already the husband’s customary wife from 15th July 2012, two whole years before Vida and Stephen’s 2014 ordinance wedding,” Ackah-Blay explained.
Mercy also presented photographs from the alleged customary marriage ceremony, identified witnesses and argued that she had financially contributed to properties that Vida wanted included in the divorce settlement.
The High Court initially allowed her to join the case. That decision, however, was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which held that her inclusion would only “murky the waters.”
The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed.
In restoring Mercy Agyeiwaa as a party to the case, the apex court directed the High Court to proceed with the trial, noting that her claims introduced legal questions that could not easily be separated from the dispute itself.
At the same time, the court was careful to limit the broader interpretation of its ruling.
Ackah-Blay quoted the judges as stressing that people commonly described in Ghana as “side chicks” or “side guys” generally have no place as parties in divorce cases. The court explained that Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1971 gives judges discretion in such matters because the law states a person “may” be joined to proceedings, not “shall.”
In this instance, the court found Mercy’s claims exceptional because they involved an alleged prior customary marriage and competing interests in disputed property. Those issues, the ruling suggested, made her participation necessary for a fair determination of the case.
