Legalpedia Citation: (2024-07) Legalpedia 80638 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

Thu Jul 11, 2024

Suit Number: CA/IB/86/2023

CORAM

ugochukwu anthony ogakwu Justice of the Court of Appeal

patricia ajuma mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

okon efreti abang Justice of the Court of Appeal

PARTIES

1. THOMAS ADEWALE-TOYE

APPELLANTS

MRS. IYABO ADEWALE-TOYE

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

• Matrimonial Causes
• Property Settlement
• Judicial Discretion
• Evidence
• Family Law

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant, Mr. Thomas Adewale-Toye, and the respondent, Mrs. Iyabo Adewale-Toye, were married for thirty-four years before seeking dissolution of the marriage. After the divorce was granted, the lower court addressed the ancillary issue of property settlement. The court ruled that Plots 6 and 7 Laniyan Layout, Idi-Ishin, Ibadan, were jointly owned by both parties but awarded the property solely to the respondent. The appellant was dissatisfied with this part of the judgment, arguing that it was unreasonable for the court to award the entire property to the respondent, despite its joint ownership.

The appellant challenged this decision on two grounds: first, that the award was perverse given the joint ownership, and second, that the trial court had granted relief not specifically sought by the respondent. The respondent argued that the property should rightfully be awarded to her due to her significant contributions during the marriage.

HELD

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision. It found that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion under Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. The Court of Appeal ruled that the award of the jointly owned property to the respondent was just and equitable, considering the circumstances of the case, including the respondent’s long-standing contributions to the marriage.

ISSUES

1. Whether the award of Plots 6 and 7 Laniyan Layout, Idi-Ishin, solely to the respondent was perverse, given that the court recognized the property as jointly owned?
2. Whether the trial court had the authority to grant a relief not specifically sought by the respondent?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

Judicial Discretion in Property Settlement – Power of the court to award property solely to one spouse

“The Matrimonial Causes Act grants the court the discretion to make an equitable settlement of property upon the dissolution of marriage. In this case, the lower court was within its discretion to award the property solely to the respondent, despite its joint ownership, considering the facts of the case.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

Proof of Joint Ownership – Requirement for establishing joint ownership of property

“It is established that the parties jointly owned Plots 6 and 7 Laniyan Layout, Idi-Ishin. However, ownership alone does not restrict the court from settling the property on one spouse if deemed just and equitable.” Per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

Equity in Property Distribution – Considering non-financial contributions during marriage

“The court took into account the non-financial contributions of the respondent, such as her role in maintaining the home and raising children, when making the property award. Such considerations are valid in determining what is just and equitable.” Per OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

Authority of the Court – Power to grant relief beyond what was sought

“A court has the authority to grant relief that is not specifically sought if such relief is deemed necessary to achieve justice. In this case, the award of the property was within the court’s powers, even though the respondent did not specifically ask for exclusive ownership.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

Discretion in Awarding Joint Property – Considerations in awarding joint property solely to one party

“The discretion exercised by the court was informed by the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property, including the contributions of the respondent. Such discretion must be exercised judicially, considering both parties’ contributions.” Per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

Failure to Challenge Findings – Effect of not challenging key findings in appeal

“The appellants failed to successfully challenge the key findings of the trial court regarding the respondent’s contributions to the acquisition of the property. This weakened their appeal.” Per OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

Principle of Finality – Effect of a failure to appeal critical findings

“Once a court has made findings on key issues, and they are not appealed against, those findings become binding. The appellants’ failure to challenge certain findings regarding the respondent’s contributions proved detrimental to their case.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

of Non-Financial Contributions – Validity of considering intangible contributions in property disputes

“The court recognized that non-financial contributions, such as homemaking and caregiving, are valuable contributions in marriage and may be factored into property settlements.” Per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

Joint Ownership Under Customary Law – Division of jointly owned property upon dissolution

“The division of jointly owned property following the dissolution of marriage must be guided by what is fair and equitable under the circumstances. The court considered these factors in awarding the property solely to the respondent.” Per OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

Evaluation of Evidence – Duty of the court to evaluate all relevant evidence impartially

“The trial court carefully evaluated the evidence presented by both parties, and this court finds no reason to disturb the lower court’s findings.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

Role of Judicial Discretion – Proper exercise of discretion in property settlements

“The court exercised its discretion properly in this case. The award of the property was based on a thorough review of the parties’ contributions, both financial and non-financial.” Per PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.

Distribution of Joint Property – Fairness in property settlement decisions

“The distribution of joint property must reflect the needs and contributions of both parties. In this case, the court deemed it fair and equitable to award the property solely to the respondent. “Per OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.

Implications of Non-Financial Contributions – Long-term marriage and property rights

“In long-term marriages, the non-financial contributions of one spouse, such as caring for the home, are essential factors in determining property rights after dissolution.” Per UGOCHUKWU ANTHONY OGAKWU, J.C.A.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT