Court weighs request to limit Hajia4Reall’s access to Children in RNAQ divorce case

Proceedings in the ongoing divorce case between Joana Quaye and businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) took a new turn on Tuesday, June 2, as the Family Court in Accra considered an application seeking to restrict the involvement of socialite Mona Faiz Montrage, popularly known as Hajia4Reall, in the lives of the couple’s children.

The matter came before the court as part of a motion for maintenance orders pending appeal, filed by the Petitioner. Among the reliefs sought were restrictions on the children’s interaction with Hajia4Reall and a reduction in the periods during which the Respondent would have access to the children.

In support of the application, the Petitioner submitted video evidence and referenced Hajia4Reall’s previous incarceration, arguing that her association with the children may not be in their best interests. The application also alleged that the children’s social media activities had been adversely influenced by their environment and interactions while under the care of the Respondent.

Court documents further cited a video involving one of the children, which the Petitioner argued raised concerns about the child’s welfare and supervision. According to the documents, the issue had been brought to the attention of the Respondent, who reportedly acknowledged concerns regarding the child’s conduct.

The Petitioner additionally contended that the Respondent’s alleged absence during some visitation periods resulted in the children spending considerable time in the company of Hajia4Reall and her child, who are said to reside with him.

However, the application was strongly opposed by the Respondent through his lawyer, Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu.

Counsel argued that the orders sought would directly affect Hajia4Reall, despite her not being a party to the proceedings and having no opportunity to respond to the allegations. He maintained that granting such orders in her absence could offend the principles of natural justice.

The Respondent also challenged the legal basis of the application, contending that the reliefs sought were not available under the circumstances and questioning the court’s jurisdiction to make such orders after judgment had already been delivered.

Counsel for the Petitioner, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed, arguing that Order 65 Rule 23(3) and (4) of C.I. 47, together with provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, empower the court to make post-judgment orders where necessary.

Mr Dame further indicated that the Petitioner would not oppose service of the motion on Hajia4Reall or her participation in the proceedings if the court deemed it appropriate.

Addressing the video evidence, counsel for the Respondent said his side would respond to its contents after the court had reviewed the material.

Following submissions from both parties, the court stated that it would first examine the video evidence before making any determination on the application.

The case was subsequently adjourned to June 26, 2026, when the court is expected to view the video evidence, hear any further submissions arising from it, and consider the Petitioner’s pending motion for injunction.