The basis of jurisdiction in matrimonial causes under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1970, is domicile. It is the domicile of a person that confers jurisdiction on the court to entertain his or her petition for dissolution of marriage. Where the domicile of a petitioner is not established the court will lack jurisdiction to decree a dissolution of marriage.
— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
SHARE ON
The burden of proving that a domicile has been chosen in substitution for the domicile of origin is on the person who asserts that the domicile of origin is lost – the intention must be proved with perfect clearness. Winans v. A.G. (1904) AC 287 at 290; Bhojwani v. Bhojwani (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.407) 349.
— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
This being a matrimonial matter it is not in the interest of justice to award costs in this case, each party should bear his or her own costs.
— M.O. Onalaja, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
Domicile of Choice – A domicile established by physical presence within a State or territory coupled with the intention to make it home. A person over the age of 21 other than a married woman or insane person may acquire a domicile of choice. In order to achieve this two conditions must be fulfilled- (1) Residence in the country; (2) There must be an intention to reside there permanently or at least indefinitely.
— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
LUMSDEN v. LUMSDEN (1963) 5 FLR 388, the Supreme court of Victoria said on the issue of award of maintenance and I quote from 392 thus: “Maintenance is intended to provide for the needs of the wife and not mark disapproval of the husband’s conduct.”
The application for the enforcement of the Appellant’s fundamental rights to personal property, family and private life, dignity of her person and against discrimination was brought at the trial Court in subtle way to settle the Appellant’s matrimonial dispute with her estranged husband and brother-in-law, respectively the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein. The Appellant had ingenuously crafted an otherwise matrimonial causes matter to fit into the special procedure offered by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (FREPR). That special procedure, on the peculiar facts of this case, does not avail her to ventilate her matrimonial dispute.
— Ejembi Eko, JSC. Nwachukwu v Nwachukwu (2018) – SC.601/2013
It was held in Koku v. Koku (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.616) 672 CA that:- “Jurisdiction of court to hear a divorce petition is governed by the domicile of the husband and not by the residence of the husband. And by operation of law, a married woman, on marriage, takes on the domicile of her husband. Consequently, the court with jurisdiction to adjudicate on a divorce matter is the court of the domicile of the husband Bhojwani v Bhojwani (1996) 6 NWLR (pt.457) 661”. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry