From one household to another, stories are told of fathers who buy houses and register them in the names of their children. Sometimes, it is an expression of love. Sometimes, it is a way of securing a child’s future. A father may pay for the land, put up a building and have the property registered in his son’s or daughter’s name, even while the child is too young to understand what is happening.
Similar arrangements occur in marriages. A husband may acquire a house in his wife’s name, intending it as a gift or as a way of providing for her and the family.
But what does the law make of such arrangements? Does the person whose name appears on the property documents automatically become the owner? Does the person who paid for the property retain an interest in it? And where the property was intended as a gift, can the purchaser later establish that it was not meant to belong to the person in whose name it was acquired?
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana in Fynn-Sackey v Fynn-Sackey & Another [2026] GHASC 53 (29 July 2026) offers useful guidance on these questions. The case concerned the presumption of advancement, a common law doctrine that may determine who owns property acquired in the name of a child or spouse.
Facts of the Case
The late Emmanuel Fynn-Sackey died intestate on 2 August 2016. Among the properties he acquired during his lifetime was a house at H/No. J81, Buade, Nungua, Accra. He purchased the property with his own resources but registered it in the name of one of his eight children, who was then a child.
The father subsequently developed the property by building six rooms and stores on the plot. He managed the property and collected the proceeds from it without interference from his son. The son was not involved in its management, even after he became an adult.
Following the father’s death, the property became the subject of a dispute among his children. The son maintained that his father had deliberately acquired the house in his name and intended it to be his sole property. He therefore asked the High Court in Accra to declare that the property constituted an advancement to him and should not form part of his father’s intestate estate.
His siblings opposed the claim. They argued that the son had made no financial or other contribution towards the acquisition of the property and had no interest in it beyond his status as a child of the deceased. They further maintained that their father had never gifted any of his properties to his children and that all the properties he acquired should form part of his estate.
The High Court accepted that the father had acquired the property in his son’s name. It nevertheless held that the transaction did not constitute an advancement because of the rights the father exercised over the property during his lifetime.
The son appealed. On 19 January 2023, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and held that the property had been advanced to him. His siblings, dissatisfied with that decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
In reaching its decision, the Court explained that where a father acquires property in the name of his child, the law presumes that he intended to make a gift to the child. The fact that the father provided all the money for the purchase does not, in itself, defeat that presumption. Nor does the fact that he continued to manage the property and enjoy its proceeds during his lifetime necessarily establish that the property remained beneficially his.
As observed by the Supreme Court, the defendants could not point to a declaration by their father, made before or at the time of the transaction, showing that he did not intend the property to be a gift. The Court consequently upheld the conclusion that the property had been advanced to the son and should not form part of the father’s intestate estate.
The Presumption of Advancement
The presumption of advancement is a common law doctrine under which the law presumes an intention to make a gift in certain relationships. It applies where a father purchases property in the name of his child or where a husband purchases property in his wife’s name.
Where a father buys property in his child’s name, for example, the law presumes that he intends to benefit the child. The transaction is therefore treated differently from a situation in which one person provides the purchase money but places the property in the name of a person outside the recognised categories.
In the latter situation, the law may presume a resulting trust. In simple terms, this means that although the property is registered in another person’s name, that person may hold it for the benefit of the person who paid for it.&x20;
Defeating the Presumption of Advancement
The presumption of advancement is not, however, conclusive. It may be rebutted by evidence of a contrary intention. The critical question is whether the purchaser intended to make a gift when the property was acquired.
The Supreme Court explained that evidence of this contrary intention must be found in the acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of the transaction. A father who intends to acquire property in his child’s name but does not intend to give it to the child may, for instance, make a declaration that the child is to hold the property on trust for him. Such evidence may establish that the transaction was not intended as an advancement.
The timing of the declaration matters too. A statement made only after the property has been acquired is not equivalent to a declaration of intention made before or at the time of the purchase. The Court also explained that the subsequent acts and conduct of the purchaser cannot simply be relied upon in his favour to rebut the presumption.
This was significant in the Fynn-Sackey case. The father’s continued management of the property, his development of the plot and his collection of rent did not establish the necessary contrary intention. The defendants had to do more than show that their father had behaved like an owner. They needed evidence capable of showing that, when he acquired the property in his son’s name, he did not intend it as a gift.
Relationships Covered by the Presumption
It must be emphasised that the presumption does not apply to every family relationship. It does not automatically arise merely because property is acquired in the name of a relative or someone with whom the purchaser has a close personal relationship. The traditional categories are limited to a father and child, a person standing in the position of a parent and child, and a husband and wife. Thus, where a man acquires property in the name of his niece, nephew, sister or fiancée, the transaction does not automatically attract the presumption of advancement. The ordinary presumption of a resulting trust may instead apply.
Lessons from the Case
The case offers some important lessons for anyone who buys property in the name of a child or spouse.
First, if you do not intend the property to be a gift, make that clear from the beginning. A father who wants his child to hold a property on trust for him should clearly express that intention before or at the time of the purchase. Trying to explain the arrangement years later may not be enough.
Second, continuing to manage a property does not necessarily mean you still own it. In this case, the father developed the house, collected rent and managed it throughout his lifetime. Yet those actions did not displace the presumption that he had intended the property as a gift to his son.
Third, the presumption does not apply to every relative. Buying a house in the name of your child or wife may attract the presumption of advancement. Buying one in the name of your sister, nephew, niece or fiancée does not automatically have the same effect. The relationship between the purchaser and the person named on the property documents matters.
Finally, families should not assume that every property paid for by a deceased person belongs to the estate. Before including such a property among the assets to be shared among the deceased’s heirs, the circumstances in which it was acquired and the intention behind the transaction must be considered.
As this case shows, a property may have been intended as a gift long before the question of inheritance arose.
