CASE TITLE: ALLI v. OKOLOKO (2023) LPELR-60700(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 14th JULY, 2023
JUSTICES: JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, JCA
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JCA
DIVISION: LAGOS
PRACTICE AREA: MATRIMONIAL CAUSES – MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDING(S)
FACT:
This is an interlocutory appeal that emanated from the ruling of the High Court of Lagos State.
Respondent filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage between himself and the appellant. Appellant is domiciled with the children of the marriage in the United States of America, while the respondent lives in Nigeria. Appellant filed an answer under protest. She also filed a motion on notice on the same grounds of objection raised in the answer under protest.
The trial Court heard the Appellant’s motion and dismissed it. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on:
1. Was the lower Court right to have refused to apply the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap S6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria to the case before it on the basis that the said suit was sui generis?
2. Whether the lower Court did not breach Appellant’s right to a fair hearing when it failed to resolve several issues raised before it in the Appellant’s motion on notice dated September 20, 2021.
3. Having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), whether the principle of a married woman’s domicile of dependence is not discriminatory, derogatory, and unconstitutional
4. Considering the petition before the lower Court vis-à-vis the provisions of the Marriage Act, Cap. M6, and the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1970, Cap. M7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, was the lower Court not wrong to have assumed jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s Petition.
COUNSEL SUBMISSION(S):
In this legal case, the learned senior Counsel for the Appellant argued that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s petition for divorce. The Appellant’s main contentions were that a court can only exercise jurisdiction that is statutorily conferred upon it, and it cannot expand its jurisdiction. The marriage sought to be dissolved was not conducted in Nigeria and did not comply with Section 49 of the Marriage Act, so the lower Court lacked jurisdiction over it. Marriages conducted outside Nigeria can only be deemed to have been conducted in Nigeria if certain provisions of the Marriage Act apply. The Appellant argued that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction because it couldn’t exercise in personam jurisdiction over the Appellant, who was domiciled in the United States of America.
The Appellant asserted that the trial court did not have the statutory jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Respondent in the divorce petition.
The learned senior Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the principle of a married woman’s domicile of dependence was considered irrelevant in determining the Court’s jurisdiction over the Respondent’s divorce petition. Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act and other provisions recognized marriages contracted in Nigeria and elsewhere as valid, and such marriages could be dissolved by a Nigerian Court if the petitioner was domiciled in Nigeria. The Respondent further argued that the Court had jurisdiction over the custody of the children since they were citizens of Nigeria by birth, and relevant constitutional provisions supported this and that the High Court of any state in Nigeria had jurisdiction to hear matrimonial cases, and the Federal High Court did not have jurisdiction in this matter.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed.
RATIO(S):
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES – MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDING(S): Position of the law on the jurisdiction of Nigerian Court in a matrimonial proceeding where one of the parties is outside Nigeria or the marriage was not celebrated in Nigeria.
“In this appeal, both the Appellant and Respondent are Nigerians but the Appellant and the children of the marriage are resident in United States of America”.
By virtue of Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, only the issue of domicile of the Petitioner (i.e. Respondent) ought to be considered by the trial Court when determining the issue of whether it has the Jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.
In situations where a party or parties have arrived at the decision to dissolve their marriage, the Courts are usually cautious, will not allow oppressive proceedings or waste time on irrelevant things. The interests of Justice and reasonableness would always play out.
The learned senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that because the Appellant who is a Nigerian is domiciled in United States of America that the trial Court lacked the Jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. I do not agree with that submission because insofar as determining the Jurisdiction of the trial Court is concerned it is the domicile of the Respondent that is relevant. I have stated earlier that both parties are Nigerians even their children are Nigerians, though the Appellant and the children are for now domiciled in the United States of America. In my view, that has nothing to do with the Jurisdiction of the trial Court when Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act is applied.
It has been contended that the High Court in Nigeria lack Jurisdiction to entertain dissolution of a marriage that was not celebrated in Nigeria or under the Marriage Act.
But Order V Rule 27(7) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules recognizes marriages contracted in Nigeria and elsewhere. And by virtue of Section 3(1) c of the Matrimonial Causes Act a marriage that complies with the requirements of the law of the place where the marriage took place and is a valid marriage under the laws of that place will be regarded as a valid marriage in Nigeria and same can be dissolved by a Nigerian Court insofar as the Petitioner is domiciled in Nigeria.” Per BADA, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
