A Grade “A” Customary Court sitting in Ilu-abo, Akure, Ondo State has ruled that the marriage between Mr. Olaniran Emmanuel Onisile (Petitioner/Respondent) v. Mrs. Oluwatoyin Onisile (Respondent/Applicant) for the past 31 years has been a customary marriage and not a statutory marriage against the belief of the wife.
Mr. Olaniran Emmanuel Onisile, the husband, dragged Mrs. Oluwatoyin Onisile, his wife, before the Court, urging the Court to dissolve their 31 years old marriage on grounds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
The court which was presided over by Magistrate Adedeji .O. Adebisi ruled that the origin of the marriage certificate Mrs. Oluwatoyin Onisile relied on to claim the existence of a statutory marriage was not traced to the church, the local government, or any constituted authority; despite the fact, the authenticity and validity of the marriage certificate was heavily under fire.
The Learned Counsel representing the Petitioner (husband) Barrister A. P. Amuluku Esq. had filed before the Court that“…The Petitioner then a bachelor was lawfully married to the Respondent a Spinster on the 17th of July, 1992 according to the Yoruba Native Law and Custom, and marriage was blessed on 18th July, 1992 at the Evangelical Church of Yahweh, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.
Amuluku Esq sought: “A DECREE of dissolution of the marriage contracted between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the 17th July 1992 according to the Yoruba Native Law and Custom and blessed on the 18th July 1992 at the Evangelical Church of Yahweh, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria”
The Learned Counsel representing the Respondent Barrister Olabanjo Ayenakin, Esq. filed a preliminary objection dated 21st of March, 2023 seeking that the matter be struck out or dismissed for want of jurisdiction; because the marriage under discussion is a statutory marriage and not a customary marriage.
Mr. Olaniran Emmanuel Onisile (Husband) had brought evidence before the court from the Ministry Of interior that the church where the marriage was blessed was not a licensed place of worship where a marriage can be celebrated. Also, the, Registrar of Marriage in Akure South Local Government covering statutory marriages celebrated within the local government also wrote to the Court that they have no record whatsoever about the marriage certificate or celebration of the marriage under contention.
After hearing arguments His Worship Adedeji said: "If churches are allowed to conduct statutory marriages without the input of the local government and other relevant constituted authorities, that will desecrate the institution of marriage, express provisions of the law regarding proof of marriage as well as the sanity of our society by creating a banana republic of all sorts of ‘statutory’ marriages as long as any marriage certificate is brandished even if it was designed by a business center operator. This will not only make a mockery of our laws, but it would also reduce the institution of marriage into a steady unit of dissonance and prevarication”.
Conclusively, the presiding judge, whilst ruling on the preliminary objection held that: “May the day never come when a Court will not be able to adjudicate on what will evidence whether it has jurisdiction or not, especially where the claim (writ) expressly on the surface falls within the purview of the jurisdictional coordinate of the Court.
"Flowing from all issues resolved above, I cannot see my way through to rule that a valid statutory marriage exists between parties as to be able to subsume the customary marriage parties have unanimously agreed to its existence".
"For this reason, I hold that there is no valid statutory marriage in sight that has subsumed the existence of the customary marriage celebrated on the 17th of July, 1992".
"The notice of Preliminary Objection filed on the 21st of March, 2023 is dismissed. I so hold.
Hence, as it stands what I have before me to adjudicate upon is the marriage contracted between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the 17th of July, 1992 according to the Yoruba Native Law and Custom flowing from the rules of this Court. I so hold”.
The Court adjourned the matter to the 5th of June, 2023 for trial.
Post a Comment