CORAM

---

BRETT, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

TAYLOR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

BAIRAMIAN, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

1. CHRISTINA ENEKEBE

2. ODUCHE AJAKO

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

None.

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Petitioner sought a divorce from the respondent on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and persistent nagging. The trial court dismissed his claim on the ground of culpable delay

 

---

HELD

---

The court held that the argument of the appellant that the appeal should be allowed because the judgement when dealing with delay does not expressly mention Blunt V Blunt and its conclusion as  bearing on the question of delay is not a ground of substance and accordingly was rightly refused by the trial Judge.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Petitioner had delayed much before he brought the action

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ATTITUDE OF THE APPELLATE COURTS ON THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION BY THE TRIAL COURT

---

“The appellate tribunal is not at liberty merely to substitute its own exercise of discretion for the discretion already exercised by the judge. In other words, appellate authorities ought not to reverse the order merely because they would themselves have exercised the original discretion, ad it attached to them, in a different way. But if the appellate tribunal reaches the clear conclusion that there has been a wrongful exercise of discretion in that no weight, or no sufficient weight, has been given to relevant considerations … then the reversal of the order on appeal may be justified’.”- BAIRAMIAN, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Binney v. Binney [1936] P. 178

2. Blunt v. Blunt [1943] A.C. 5 17

3. Wilson v. Wilson [1920] P. 20

4. Purton v. Purton [1957] 1 W.L.R. 216

5. England v. England [1961] 1 W.L.R. 608

6. Charles Osenton v. Johnston [1942] A.C. 130,138

7. Holland v. Holland [1918] P. 273, 280

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT