Whether the Issue of Award of Custody of a Child of a Marriage Is Within The Discretion of The Court?

CASE TITLE: OKECHALU v. OKECHALU (2025) LPELR-81868(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE:  7TH MAY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

LEAD JUDGMENT: OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

The appeal borders on Custody of a Child and Maintenance.

FACTS:

The appeal is against the judgment of High Court of Federal Capital Territory (trial Court) delivered on 16/5/2022 Coram Halidu J.

The brief facts of the case is that the trial Judge issued an Order Nisi dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner (the Respondent herein) and Respondent/Cross Petitioner (the appellant herein) that was celebrated at the Marriage Registry Holy Trinity Church Lokoja Kogi State on the 22/4/2006, granted custody of the child to the Petitioner/Cross Respondent.

The trial Court ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent the sum of N25,000.00 monthly for the maintenance and upkeep of the child subject to upward review of same occasioned by inflation and economic evaluation. The trial Judge also ordered the Appellant to pay N150,000.00 as the child’s termly school fees at Solid Rock International School Lugbe, Abuja, ordered to pay N125,000.00 as house rent and accommodation of the Petitioner and their son subject to periodic review according to the prevailing market trend. The trial Court further held that the Appellant shall provide food, clothing, school fees and all other needs for the child and shall have unfettered access to him at anytime he desires.

The cumulative amount granted by the trial Court against the Appellant per annum when computed came to a total sum of N875,000.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant lodged an appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the two issues formulated by the Respondent and the third issue formulated by the Appellant in the determination of the appeal thus:

i. Whether having regard to the materials and evidence placed before it, the trial Court rightly exercised its discretion in granting custody of the only child of the marriage to the Respondent.

ii. Whether the trial Court was justified and right in awarding against the Appellant as maintenance allowance.

iii. Whether the trial Court was right when contrary to the reliefs sought by the Respondent that Emmanuel Okechalu Junior should spend alternative holidays with both parents and that she be granted custody of her son until he attains the age of 16, the trial Court refused to allow the Appellant have custody of his son during holidays or hold that the Appellant should have custody once his son attains 16 years.

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal succeeded in part. The award of accommodation was set aside and it was ordered that the child shall spend alternative holidays at both parents’.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- GROUND(S) OF APPEAL: Whether a ground of appeal must arise from the text of the decision appealed against
• EQUITY- EQUITABLE MAXIMS: Whether the law can compel the doing of the impossible
• MATRIMONIAL CAUSES- MAINTENANCE: Principles guiding assessment of maintenance in matrimonial causes
• MATRIMONIAL CAUSES- CUSTODY OF A CHILD: Whether the issue of award of custody of a child of a marriage is within the discretion of the Court; how such discretion must be exercised
• MATRIMONIAL CAUSES- CUSTODY OF A CHILD: Position of the law as regards the consideration of who should get the custody of the children of a marriage
• MATRIMONIAL CAUSES- CUSTODY OF A CHILD: Factors to be considered and used in determining the issue of custody of children in matrimonial proceedings

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