NJOKU ADVOCATES

NJOKU ADVOCATES Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from NJOKU ADVOCATES, Lawyer & Law Firm, No. 1B, T. O. S. Benson Crescent, Utako District, Abuja.

We are a firm of lawyers poised to provide exceptional & satisfying legal services through the use of our vast knowledge & experience in the latest legal developments to develop innovative strategies to effectively obtain favourable outcomes for clients.

NOLLYWOOD LAW OF DIVORCE: CAN DISSOLUTION OF STATUTORY MARRIAGE BE GOTTEN THROUGH MUTUAL AGREEMENT/CONSENT OF PARTIES IN...
28/09/2024

NOLLYWOOD LAW OF DIVORCE: CAN DISSOLUTION OF STATUTORY MARRIAGE BE GOTTEN THROUGH MUTUAL AGREEMENT/CONSENT OF PARTIES IN NIGERIA?

In 2019, I was referred to a socialite who was desirous of dissolving her marriage with her husband. After clerking the client and receiving advance payment to pursue a petition for the dissolution of her marriage, I filed the petition in court. As soon as her husband was served, she called me on phone and angrily blurted out her displeasure with my manner of pursuing her cause. She had expected that I should've written not more than one-page letter to her husband indicating that she's divorcing him and seeking his consent for the divorce by signing the document. Haa!!! Nollywood 1 - 0 Me.

This piece is provoked by what transpired yesterday in the High Court of the F.C.T. at Jabi which played out in sync with the Nollywood law of divorce. The case is a petition for dissolution of marriage otherwise known in common parlance as "divorce". The lawyers to the couple told the judge that their clients have settled and wished to adopt their Terms of Settlement so that the court can enter same as consent judgment. What??? In Nigeria? Nollywood 1 - 0 Nigerian Law.

It is usual to see in Nollywood movies, married partners dissolving their statutory marriages by "signing divorce papers". Rather than look inward and conduct simple research before churning out their movies on this subject, Nollywood producers just copy from their western counterpart: Hollywood, where same is replicated. But is this the case in Nigeria? Let us explore the laws governing matrimonial causes in Nigeria to find our answers.

Firstly, the state of the Nigerian laws on marriage, though borrowed from England, tacitly recognises our cultural apprehension of the sanctity of marriage by making its dissolution one that cannot be achievable by a no-fault divorce but through proof by oral or affidavit evidence of one ground that is pregnant with 8 facts to support it specified under the Matrimonial Causes Act. What this means is that, you cannot just wake up as a spouse to divorce your partner without cause or simply because you're tired of the marriage or as a result of "irreconcilable differences". The most common case of divorce we have in Nigeria is known as dissolution of marriage. There are others like nullity of marriage, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, and jactitation of marriage. In a petition for dissolution of marriage, the husband and wife are validly married but don't want to do again. To dissolve a statutory marriage, the ground must be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. But before the court can grant a decree for dissolution of marriage, the Petitioner (who is the spouse seeking the divorce) must satisfy the court that the marriage has broken irretrievably through evidence of any or more of the following 8 facts:
a. Refusal of the respondent (that is the spouse against whom the petitioner is seeking to be divorced from) to consummate the marriage.
b. That the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent.
c. That the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
d. That the respondent has deserted the petitioner for at least 1 year.
e. That the couple have lived apart for at least 2 years and the respondent does not object to the divorce.
f. That the couple have lived apart for at least 3 years.
g. That the other spouse has failed to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights for at least 1 year.
h. That the other spouse has been absent for at least 7 years to presume that he/she is dead. (See Section 15(1) and (2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap. M7, L.F.N. 2004).

Now, the existence of one or more the facts listed above is not what one can achieve by consent. They're facts that need to be proved to curry divorce. That is why, under Section 82 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, the standard required for proving such facts is by establishing same to the reasonable satisfaction of the court. The court cannot be satisfied of the existence of facts giving rise to the ground for dissolution of marriage through the mutual agreement of the parties to the marriage. It must be by oral or affidavit evidence of the petitioner, especially where it is a proceedings for dissolution of marriage (See Order XV Rules 1 and 5 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, 1983). To further buttress the point that a court hearing a petition for dissolution of marriage cannot make a decree for dissolution of marriage by consent of parties, Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules provides that the court is not prevented from making, with the consent of the parties, orders determining the proceedings or relating to the proceedings, but expressly forbids the court from making such consent orders when it applies to the determination of dissolution of marriage and the likes. What this means therefore, is that, parties can settle by agreement on other matrimonial issues like custody of children, settlement of marital properties, maintenance, etc, but cannot mutually settle or consent to the dissolution of their marriage. The only permissible settlement in such proceedings is going back to each other to live in peace and harmony. But once the destiny of such settlement is the dissolution of marriage, it must fail for proof by oral or affidavit evidence to succeed.

C.E.C. Njoku, Esq.
©️ 28/09/2024.

To the best of my knowledge, CAC is wrong on this one. This provision of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 (CAM...
11/08/2024

To the best of my knowledge, CAC is wrong on this one. This provision of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 (CAMA, 2020) is not applicable to Associations registrable under Part F of CAMA, 2020 which is for Incorporated Trustees.

Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) grants onto every citizen of Nigeria the fundamental right to freedom of assembly and association. The exercise of such right is not circumscribed by any law except when the association is to be formed as a political party which shall thereby be guided by the electoral laws.

The CAMA, 2020 went ahead to give effect to, and be consistent with, the Constitutional right of freedom of assembly and association when it made the registration of associations discretionary under Section 823(1) thereof and not mandatory. More so, reliance by the CAC under Section 863(2) of CAMA, 2020 is a misconstruction of the purport of the law and inapplicable to the Nigerian Law Society (as an association of lawyers) since Section 863(1) of CAMA, 2020 has already excluded entities registrable as Incorporated Trustees from the list of entities to be penalised for carrying on business without registration when it provided as follows:
"863.—(1) A person or association of persons shall not carry on business in Nigeria as a company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership or under a business name without being registered under this Act."

And going by the rule of statutory interpretation espoused in the Latin legal maxim: "expressio unius est exclusio alterius", the express mentions of "a company, limited liability partnership, limited partnership or business name" which are all parts of registration of entities under the law; Incorporated Trustees which is another form of registration not mentioned therein is intended to be excluded. This is asides the fact that the registration of Nigerian Law Society has been a subject of litigation before the Federal High Court which ordered the CAC to register the Nigerian Law Society. Information making the rounds and substantiated by this Public Notice is that CAC has not complied with the order of the Federal High Court.

So, it is on the strength of the above that I'm of the opinion that CAC is wrong in this publication. CAC is therefore urged to withdraw this publication and the contemporaneous petition to the Inspector-General of Police on this subject as it is against the provisions of the CAMA, 2020 and ultimately, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

©️ C.E.C. Njoku, Esq.
11/08/2024.

To an Amazon.....As you celebrate the commemoration of your birth  on earth today, we at Boni Consilii LLP wish you noth...
18/02/2021

To an Amazon...
..As you celebrate the commemoration of your birth on earth today, we at Boni Consilii LLP wish you nothing but joy, blessings, love, protection and above all, more successes in your businesses and other life's endeavours.

Happy birthday HRH (Dr.) Becky Esther Olubukola, Ph.D (The Erelu Atunluse of Erinmo Land) C.E.O., Bstan Group of Companies Ltd.

On 04/02/2021, we instituted a civil suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Maitama, Abuja on behalf o...
17/02/2021

On 04/02/2021, we instituted a civil suit at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Maitama, Abuja on behalf of our client over the alleged forceful seizure, towing away and detention of his motor vehicle by officers of the Directorate of Road Traffic Services popularly known within the FCT as VIO.

The case with Suit No.: FCT/HC/CV/284/2021 between Gregory T. Okere vs. Directorate of Road Traffic Services prays the Court via a Writ of Summons for a declaration that the Defendant’s officers’ seizure and detention of Claimant’s motor vehicle described as black-coloured (2004 model) Toyota Matrix with Vehicle Registration No.: BWR665AW between 29/01/2021 to 01/02/2021 in the absence of any offence committed by the Claimant or by the said Vehicle is unlawful, wrongful and a gross abuse of office by the Defendant; among other reliefs.

The suit which is now before Hon. Justice H. Mu'azu of the High Court of the FCT, Maitama has been scheduled to 18/03/2021 for Hearing.

Address

No. 1B, T. O. S. Benson Crescent, Utako District
Abuja
900108

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 18:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 18:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 18:00
Thursday 08:00 - 18:00
Friday 08:00 - 18:00
Saturday 10:00 - 14:00

Telephone

+2348127777129

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when NJOKU ADVOCATES posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to NJOKU ADVOCATES:

Share