Appeal Court Says Federal Govt Can Run Marriage Registry

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to celebrate, contract and register marriages between prospective couples in Nigeria.

The Lagos division of the appellate court also nullified the judgement of Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, which restrained the federal government from further registering marriages contracted or celebrated under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004, within some local government areas in the country.

The court, in its lead judgement delivered by Justice Abubakar Umar, and adopted by Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada (presiding) and Justice Fredrick Eziakpono Oho, held that local government councils are not the only organ of government with the exclusive preserve of contracting and celebrating marriages between a prospective couple.

Justice Daniel Osiagor had on December 8, 2021, while delivering judgement in the suit, barred the federal government from conducting marriage in some local government councils in Nigeria

The suit was jointly filed by Eti-Osa local government, Lagos State, Egbor local government, Edo State, Owerri Municipal local government, Imo State, and Port-Harcourt City local government against the minister of Interior, the Attorney General of the Federation, and Anchor Dataware Solution Limited.

RELATED

Insecurity: Let’s Flush Out Foreign Herders

1 second ago

Niger Delta Group Hails Appointment Of SSDC Board Members

48 minutes ago

The lower court had also restrained the minister of Interior and his privies, agents or delegates from further registering marriages contracted or celebrated under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004, within the plaintiffs’ local government area.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, the appellant (minister of Interior), in his notice of appeal marked CA/LAG/CV/566/2022, urged the appellate court to determine two issues, namely, “Whether the lower court was correct when it held that the plea of the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ action.

“Whether the learned trial Judge was proper when it granted the reliefs sought by the 1st to 4th Respondent and found that the Judgment in Suit No: FHC/870/2002 gave exclusive rights to the 1st – 4th Respondents and other local governments in Nigeria to conduct, celebrate and register marriages within their local government.

But in the judgement delivered by Justice Umar, the appellate court held that the lower court was wrong in granting reliefs 1 to 4 of the reliefs sought by the 1st to 4th respondents and granting reliefs seven as endorsed on the amended originating summons in part.

Justice Umar also held that both the appellant and the respondents have the vires to celebrate, contract and register marriages.

Justice Umar however stated that the lower court was correct in refusing reliefs 5 and 6 as endorsed in the respondents’ amended originating summons.

On whether the lower court was correct when it held that the plea of the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the 1st to 4th respondents’ action, the court held that by the declaratory orders made in Suit No FHC/L/870/2002, the 1st to 4th eespondents are entitled by law to seek the enforcement of the said orders by instituting fresh proceedings as in the instant case.

“I believe that the 1st to 4th respondents commenced Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 to enforce the declaratory reliefs made by the court in FHC/L/870/2002. In implementing the Judgment, the fresh proceedings in Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 cannot be tainted by the doctrine of res judicata. Therefore, I have no difficulty finding that the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018. This issue is consequently resolved against the Appellant.

Justice Umar, however, held that the lower court was wrong when it restrained the federal government from further registering marriages contracted or celebrated under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 taws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004, within some local government councils.

The judge ruled: “Having regard to the earlier pronouncement in this Judgment on the merits of the amended originating summons filed by the cross-appellants at the lower court, I hold the firm view that the lower court was correct when it refused reliefs 5 and 6 sought by the cross-appellants. The lower court was, however, wrong when it granted Relief 7 of the amended originating summons in part when the same ought to have been outrightly refused.

“I have found supra in this judgment that the decision in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002, which the Cross-Appellants have predicated their action on, does not in any manner whatsoever grant exclusive rights to the Cross-Appellants to conduct or celebrate marriages within the local government council.

“On the contrary, the court in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 highlighted the various fora for the conduct and celebration of marriages. The court identified the lawful bodies or authorities vested with the powers to celebrate and contract marriages for intending persons and recognised the marriage districts/local government council and marriages conducted under the license granted by the director-general Ministry of Internal Affairs, director-general of a state government in charge of unions and the minister of internal affairs.

“The simple implication of the decision in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 is that no one organ of government has the exclusive preserve of contracting and celebrating marriages between a prospective couple. I am therefore of the considered view that the restriction imposed by the lower court directing the 1st Cross Respondent to only conduct, celebrate and contract marriages in the marriage registries situated at Ikoyi, Lagos, and Federal Capital Territory Abuja is wrong and erroneous.

“The lower court was, however, correct in dismissing Reliefs 5 and 6 as endorsed in the Amended originating summons. A cursory review of the reliefs dissipates doubt that the reserves are consequential and predicated on the success of the substantive/principal comforts as contained in Reliefs 1-4.

“Having found supra that the reliefs 1-4 ought not to have been granted by the lower court, it follows, therefore, that reliefs 5 and 6 being ancillary must fail as a matter of course. It is the law that where a principal relief fails, all reliefs ancillary or depend thereto will fail. Accordingly, the Judgment of the lower court delivered on the 8th day of December 2021 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/816/2018 succeeds and fails in part. Parties should bear their respective cost”.