RNAQ ex-wife petitions court to restrict Hajia4Reall’s closeness to her children in divorce case with businessman

Proceedings in the divorce dispute between Joana Quaye and Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) on Tuesday, June 2, focused on an application before the Family Court in Accra seeking to restrict access by Mona Faiz Montrage, popularly known as Hajia4Reall, to the couple’s children.

The court considered arguments on a motion for maintenance orders pending appeal, during which the Petitioner asked for orders limiting the children’s interaction with Hajia4Reall and reducing the Respondent’s access periods.

In support of the application, the Petitioner submitted video evidence and referenced material relating to Hajia4Reall’s previous incarceration, arguing that her association with the children may not serve their best interests. It was further claimed that the children’s social media activities had been negatively influenced by their environment and interactions while in the Respondent’s care.

Court documents also cited a video involving one of the children, which the Petitioner said raised concerns about supervision and welfare. The documents indicated that the issue was reportedly brought to the Respondent’s attention, and he acknowledged concerns about the child’s conduct.

The Petitioner additionally argued that the Respondent’s alleged absence during some visitation periods led to the children spending considerable time with Hajia4Reall and her child, who, according to the Petitioner, live with the Respondent.

The Respondent, through counsel Nana Boakye Mensah Bonsu, opposed the application, describing the reliefs sought as improper and challenging their legality.

Counsel argued that the orders would directly affect Hajia4Reall, who is not a party to the case and has not been heard, raising concerns of breach of natural justice.

He further contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant such orders after judgment had already been delivered.

However, counsel for the Petitioner, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed, arguing that Order 65 Rule 23(3) and (4) of C.I. 47 and the Matrimonial Causes Act provide a legal basis for post-judgment orders.

He also indicated that the Petitioner would not oppose serving the motion on Hajia4Reall and allowing her to participate in the proceedings if the court deemed it necessary.

On the video evidence, counsel for the Respondent said they would respond after the court had reviewed the material.

The court subsequently indicated that it would first examine the video evidence before making further determinations.

The matter was adjourned to June 26, 2026, for the court to view the video, hear any further submissions arising from it, and consider the pending motion for injunction.