What the Court of Appeal Ruled: Marriage Alone Does Not Guarantee Equal Share of Property—Spouse Must Prove Contribution

In a decision underscoring the principles governing property settlement in matrimonial causes, the Court of Appeal in Aguolu v. Aguolu (2025) LPELR-80269(CA) has reaffirmed that marriage alone does not confer an automatic right to an equal share of matrimonial property. The court, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Hon. Justice Danlami Zama Senchi, JCA, dismissed the appellant’s appeal for a 50-50 division of properties, emphasising that claims to matrimonial property must be substantiated with credible
evidence of contribution under Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA).

Case Background and Legal Issue
The appellant sought the dissolution of her marriage and a 50% share of properties acquired during the union, which she classified as matrimonial property. The trial court granted the dissolution under Section 15 of the MCA, acknowledging the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, but awarded limited relief on the property claim. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed, insisting on an equal division of the assets, arguing that her status as a spouse entitled her to half of the matrimonial estate.

The central legal question before the Court of Appeal was whether a party in matrimonial proceedings is automatically entitled to an equal share of matrimonial property solely by virtue of marriage, absent proof of contribution. This issue is pivotal in Nigerian matrimonial law, where disputes over property settlement often arise amidst emotional and financial complexities.

Court’s Reasoning and Findings
The Court of Appeal anchored its decision on Section 72 of the MCA, which governs property settlement in matrimonial causes. The provision empowers courts to make orders for property settlement but imposes a tripartite requirement on claimants:

1. Qualification as Matrimonial Property: The property must have been acquired during the marriage or otherwise qualify as matrimonial property.

2. Proof of Contribution: The claimant must demonstrate their contribution—financial, domestic, or otherwise—to the acquisition, maintenance, or improvement of the property.

3. Equity and Fairness: The court must be satisfied that the settlement order is just, fair, and equitable in the circumstances.

The court found that while the properties in question were acquired during the marriage, the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of her contribution to their acquisition or upkeep. The marriage’s longevity—despite a separation exceeding 22 years—did not, in itself, justify an equal share. Justice Senchi, delivering the lead judgment, stated: “The Appellant cannot merely assert a right to half of the matrimonial properties without demonstrating the material basis upon which such a claim could be considered fair and equitable by the Court” (Pp 24–29, Paras E–C).

Drawing on established precedents, the court clarified that contributions need not be monetary. In Akinbuwa v. Akinbuwa (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 661 and Kafi v. Kafi (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 175, non-financial contributions, such as homemaking or childcare, were recognised as valid. However, such contributions must be clearly evidenced, not presumed. The court also cited English authorities, Fribance v. Fribance (1957) 1 All ER 357 and Ulrich v. Ulrich (1968) 1 All ER 67, to underscore that entitlement to matrimonial property arises from mutual contribution and joint benefit, not merely marital status.

The trial court had exercised its discretion to grant the appellant some relief, likely recognising minor contributions. However, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb this decision, rejecting the appellant’s demand for an equal division as unsupported by evidence or equity. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

The Aguolu decision reinforces the principle that matrimonial property settlement in Nigeria is contribution-based, not entitlement-driven. This approach aligns with the MCA’s emphasis on fairness but poses challenges for spouses—often women—who may struggle to prove non-financial contributions in long-separated or patriarchal marriages. The ruling highlights the need for robust documentation and evidence in property disputes, urging litigants to substantiate claims beyond marital status.

The Aguolu ruling arrives amid growing scrutiny of matrimonial property laws in Nigeria, where cultural norms often skew property ownership toward men. The MCA, enacted in 1970, has been criticised for its rigid contribution framework, prompting calls for reforms to recognise indirect contributions more flexibly, as seen in jurisdictions like the UK or South Africa. Legal scholars suggest that legislative amendments or judicial guidelines could clarify the valuation of non-financial contributions, reducing litigation burdens.

For now, Aguolu v. Aguolu serves as a cautionary tale for spouses seeking a property settlement: marriage alone is not a golden ticket to equal shares. Litigants must meticulously document their contributions, whether financial, domestic, or emotional, to secure equitable relief. As Nigeria’s courts continue to navigate these disputes, the decision underscores the delicate balance between statutory mandates and the pursuit of justice in matrimonial causes.

Source: Thenigerianlawyer