STATE V. OKECHUKWU
July 4, 2025INYANG ETIM AKPAN VS THE STATE
July 4, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1994-12) Legalpedia 36013 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
LAGOS
Fri Dec 16, 1994
Suit Number: SC.299/1991
CORAM
M.L. UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.B. WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Y.O. ADIO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NWACHINEMELU IKEMEFUNA OKONKWO
APPELLANTS
MRS. LUCY UDEGBUNAM OKAGBUE
MRS. VICTORIA EZINWA OBIOZO
ROSE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CUSTOMARY LAW-FAMILY LAW-MATRIMONAL MATTER-REPUGNANCY DOCTRINE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1st and 2nd defendants(sisters to deceased) married the 3rd defendant for deceased after his death. Plaintiff as brother of deceased- Nnanyelugo Nnebechi Okonkwo, contended that the purported children of the deceased having not recognised the marriage of the 3rd defendant to the deceased, are not his children(deceased’s) according to native law and custom.
HELD
The appeal succeeded and the decision of the Court of Appeal as well as that of the High Court were set aside
ISSUES
Did the Court of Appeal, Holden at Enugu consider properly the question as to whether or not the custom, even if held established, is repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience? and indeed is the custom considering the entire circumstances of this case, not clearly repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and contrary to public policy?
Whether the learned Justices of Appeal failed to consider adequately the issue of whether the particular custom in issue was repugnant to Natural Justice, equity and good conscience, and to apply same to the case before them.
Whether, on the facts before the Court of Appeal, the learned court was wrong in not declaring the Customary Law that validated the marriage of 3rd respondent and deceased, Nnebechi Okonkwo repugnant.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
REPUGNANCY AS A MATTER OF LAW
“It follows from these legislation that the question whether a particular , custom is repugnant is a matter of law and not fact. Therefore, for a party to a case to rely on either section 14(3) of the Evidence Law or section 20(I) of the High Court Law or even both sections, it is not necessary to plead as contended by the defendants, that a custom is repugnant.” UWAIS, JSC.
ESSENTIALS OF MARRIAGE UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW
“Marriage as it is commonly known is a union of a man and a woman. For a marriage to be meaningful it is necessary for the husband to physically exist so that the marriage can be consummated. I believe that one of the essentials of marriage under customary law is the element of procreation; which is only achievable when both the husband and wife are together alive.” UWAIS, JSC.
CASES CITED
Peenok investments Ltd v. Hotel Presidential Ltd., (1982) 12 S.C. 1(1983) 4 NCLR 122
Eugene Meribe v. Joshua C. Egwu, (1976) 3 S.C. 23 at p. 32
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
