Principles Guiding Settlement of Property in Matrimonial Causes

CASE TITLE: IGBUWE v. IGBUWE (2023) LPELR-60748 (CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH JULY, 2023

JUSTICES: AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, JCA
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, JCA

DIVISION: ASABA

PRACTICE AREA: MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

FACTS:
This is an appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Delta State, Warri. The appellant had filed a petition against the respondent for a decree of dissolution of marriage and custody of the children of the marriage. The respondent filed an answer and a cross-petition, wherein she petitioned for a decree of dissolution of marriage against the petitioner on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as follows:

• The petitioner has deserted the respondent for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the presentation of the cross petition.
• The Petitioner and Respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the cross petition and the Petitioner does not object to a decree being granted.

The trial court found in favour of the respondent, holding that it was the petitioner that led the respondent to desert. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The following issues were resolved in the appeal:

1. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the properties listed by the Respondent in her cross petition were matrimonial properties and proceeded to award some of them to the Respondent irrespective of the unchallenged evidence on record that most of these properties were owned by distinct corporative entity and others acquired by the Appellant personally and before the marriage between the parties.
2. Whether the trial Court had the jurisdiction to award properties of Luwe Global Systems Nigeria Ltd., a company incorporated and jointly owned by the parties, to the Respondent in a matrimonial cause matter.
3. Whether or not the trial Court was right when it evaluated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that it was the Appellant that constructively deserted the Respondent which led to the irretrievable breaking down of the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent.
4. Whether custody of children of marriage was rightly granted to the Respondent by the trial Court having regard to evidence on record and the law.
5. Whether was the award of the monetary maintenance to Respondent by the trial Court not excessive, unfair and unjustified having regard to the evidence on record.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The appellant argued that the trial court’s award of certain properties as matrimonial assets to the respondent was incorrect and contrary to law. He contended that the properties listed were either owned by a separate corporate entity or personally acquired by him before the marriage. The appellant provided a list of properties, asserting their ownership by the company, and claimed that they could not be classified as matrimonial property subject to transfer. He cited cases such as Georgewill v. Ekine (1998) NWLR (PT 562) 454, Iliayasu v. Ahmadu (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 571) 1588, and Tinubu v. Ojogun (2018) ALL FWLR (PT 967) 491 AT 508 to support his position.

The respondent’s counsel countered that the appellant’s understanding, requiring financial contributions for entitlement to properties, is a misconception. He referred to Section 72(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1970, emphasizing that financial contribution is not a stipulated condition but within the court’s discretion. Citing cases such as Sunmonu v. Sunmonu (2021) LPELR-56002 (CA) and Ogunbiyi v. Ogunbiyi (2021) LPELR-53497 (CA), he argued that the critical factor is whether the property was acquired during the marriage or whether payments and developments occurred after marriage. The respondent’s counsel presented evidence of the respondent’s contributions, both morally and financially, during the marriage. He highlighted the appellant’s earlier concession to transfer certain properties to the respondent but claimed that the appellant changed his stance on appeal. The counsel urged the Court to reject the appellant’s arguments.

DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed.

RATIO:
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES: SETTLEMENT: Principles guiding settlement of property in matrimonial causes
“The Courts have adopted a guideline in settlement of property in matrimonial causes closely in recent times, in the light of equity and justice of the circumstances of each case.

IN ANIETO v. ANIETO 2019 LPELR -47223(CA) per TSAMMANI JCA held thus:

“The evidence shows that the respondent actively and physically participated in the running of the appellant’s business, which experienced a sudden increase in the course of the marriage. The financial status of businesses and families also boomed. Most importantly, it was at the time that the appellant purchased and developed the plot of land covered by the certificate of occupancy (exhibit p2) in their joint names. Though the Respondent might not have contributed financially or in the nature of cash outlay towards the purchase of the land, there is uncontroverted evidence that she actively and physically contributed as Appellant’s wife to provide necessary support for the business activities of the husband.

This finding, be it noted, speaks not only of her contribution towards the development of the properties but also of her contribution to the success of the business of the appellant. It’s on the basis of these two considerations that the said properties “can be regarded as the product of joint efforts.” This contribution cannot be quantified by the Respondent in monetary terms via her affidavit of means. In the circumstances, it would be unjust and inequitable for the Court to accede to the selfish plan of the appellant to deny her the fruit of what she had sacrificed her future to achieve. This Court, being a Court of Law and Equity, will not allow that to happen. The learned trial court was right when she ordered that the property in question be sold and the proceeds of sale be equally shared between the appellant and the respondent.”

In SUNMONU V. SUNMONU (2021) LPELR-56002(CA), the Court further emphasizing the law on guidelines adopted in applying the settlement of property in matrimonial causes held thus:

“Let me hasten to state that the contribution of a property does not necessarily have to be in the nature of a cash outlay for the purchase or development of the property. It can be by way of a moral and/or financial contribution to the business of a spouse by the other party, where property is purchased from the profits of the business. It is essential that the property be purchased in the course of the marriage or that payment be completed in the course of the marriage. See SANDERS v. SANDERS (1967) 116 CLR 366; OGUNNUBI v. OGUNNUBI (2021) LPELR (53497) 1 AT 29–31.

On settlement of property, Section 72(1) of the MCA states:
The Court may, in proceedings under this act by order, require the parties to the marriage, or either of them, to make, for the benefit of all or any of the parties to and the children of the marriage, such settlement of property to which the parties are, or either of them is entitled (either in possession or reversion), as the Court may consider just and equitable in the circumstances.

In MRS GETRUDE N. MGBEAHURUIKE v. MR ROLAND C. MGBEAHURUIKE (2017) LPELR-42434(CA), the Court stated what it will consider in determining a question of settlement of property:
In respect of Section 72(1)(d)(d)(2), the Court under the act is expected to take into consideration, in determining a question of settlement of property, that is:

1. Whether or not the property in question was acquired in the course of marriage?
2. What was the contribution of each party to the cost of the acquisition?
3. What is just, fair, and equitable to do in the circumstances of settling the property?
   Again, the Court in SUMONU v. SUMONU (SUPRA) further held that:

Section 72(1) of the MCA does not apply only to parties; it is also for the benefit of the children of the marriage. It is the interest of the children that is paramount throughout, even after the proceedings. As an offshoot of matrimonial procreation, they sustain the existence of the family unit, the foundational bedrock on which societies are built, and societal values are nurtured; thus, they eventually grow up to become adults and build families of their own, thus ensuring the continued existence of the family.” Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol