WAHAB MABERI V CHIEF OYENIYI ALADE
July 21, 2025AMINU SUNMONU BAMISHEBI VS ZACCHEUS FALEYE
July 21, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (1987) Legalpedia (SC) 11112
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 3, 1987
Suit Number: SC.117/1985
CORAM
ANDREWS OTUTU OBASEKI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SAIDU KAWU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHUKWUDIFU AKUNNE OPUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ADOLPHUS GODWIN KARIBI-WHYTE
PARTIES
THERESA TEMITAYO WILLIAMS
APPELLANTS
RASHEED AHMED WILLIAMS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CUSTODY OF A CHILD
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The short point in this appeal relates to the proper order to make in respect of the custody of one of the children of the marriage between the parties to this appeal that has been dissolved by a decree nisi made by the court of trial. The decree nisi has since been made absolute. There were three children of the family, but there was no contest about the custody of two of the children whom had been in the care and custody of the respondent since the parties separated. The contest is only in respect of the custody of Kafilat Abimbola Williams who has been in the care and custody of the appellant since the parties separated. The trial judge, who heard and determined the petition granted custody of the child to the appellant. The appellant did not testify in support of her application for custody and did not appear at the hearing of the petition. The Court of Appeal, to which the respondent took the matter on appeal, reversed the decision of the trial judge and granted custody to the respondent. The dissatisfied appellant, brought the issue to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was set aside. Joint custody was granted to the parties.
ISSUES
Whether the interest and welfare of Kafilat Abimbola Williams will be better served by her remaining in the custody of the appellant or transfer-ring to the custody of the respondent.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT AN ORDER FOR CUSTODY ENTAILS
“It seems to me that order for custody must have in view the opportunity of sound education as well as physical and mental welfare. A parent who will deny these to his or her child is not worthy of an order for custody from the court. An order of custody is not a penal order on either parent and should not be construed as such. It imposes a responsibility not to be lightly taken.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
PROMOTING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD
If placing the child in the custody of either parent will not promote the welfare of the child, the court is not obliged to make such an order.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
A CHILD IS ENTITLED TO THE BEST CARE THE PARENTS CAN OFFER
“A child is entitled to enjoy the best care and attention the parents can offer. Provided that a parent is in a position and willing to provide them, the child should not be denied them by the actions of either parent.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C.
UNLESS GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT, A RESPONSIBLE PARENT SHOULD NOT BE DEPRIVED OF CUSTODY
“It has been held that if a parent could provide a home and the necessities of life to a child, he or she should not be deprived of custody unless guilty of misconduct.” Per OBASEKI, J.S.C
CASES CITED
In re OHara (1900) 2 I.R. 232.
Laxton v. Laxton and Eaglan (1966) 2 All ER 977
STATUTES REFERRED TO
