Court holds that matrimonial home is jointly owned

• A man who decides to marry a widow must be willing to take her children along with her and treat them as his own

An Upper Customary Court of Kaduna State in the Kafanchan Judicial Division has held that a matrimonial home is jointly owned and should be valued and sold with proceeds shared equally between the parties when the relationship breaks down irretrievably.

The court also held that since “the parties’ marriage has been dissolved, living together in the flat and in the same compound becomes difficult. It is therefore necessary that a solution is provided to ensure that justice is done to the parties in connection with their matrimonial home.”

This was part of the judgment delivered on 5 May 2025 by His Worship Emmanuel J. Samaila, Esq., the presiding judge of the Upper Customary Court, Kafanchan and Mr James K. Kajang, a member of the panel.

Following the dissolution of the marriage between Akila Iliya (the Petitioner) and
Martina Aboi (the respondent), he court held:

“…the respondent has credibly established her right to share in their matrimonial home and we so hold. Therefore, judgment is hereby entered as follows:

“1.   The parties’ matrimonial home, a flat located at Angwan Wakili, is hereby declared the joint property of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

2.   It is hereby ordered that the house shall be valued, sold and the proceeds shared equally between the parties. The Registrar, in conjunction with the parties, shall oversee valuation, sale and distribution of the proceeds of the sale.  This order shall take effect after 30 days from today, 5th May 2025.”

Delving deeper into the matter, the court counselled that a “man must count the cost before marrying any woman, especially a widow with children.” Adding that “It is not a good thing to marry an enterprising woman with the subtle aim of benefiting from her wealth and sending her away after the goal has been accomplished.”

Part of the full judgment reads:

“We wish to state that it is an irresponsible act for a man to marry a woman of means only to frustrate her at a time he feels he no longer needs her as a wife. It is an inconsiderate and insensitive act for the Petitioner to take the Respondent and her two children from her previous marriage only to have them thrown out of the house subsequently. A man must count the cost before marrying any woman, especially a widow with children. A man who decides to marry a widow must be willing to take her children along with her and treat them as his own if he truly loves their mother.

“The reason why the Respondent agreed to marry the Petitioner could have included his willingness to take her along with her children. No widow who desires to remarry should be separated from her children just because a man desires to take her as wife. There is no way that such a woman will be happy and satisfied in the new marriage without her children whom she will feel she has abandoned because of the marriage.

“It is not a good thing to marry an enterprising woman with the subtle aim of benefiting from her wealth and sending her away after the goal has been accomplished. It became apparent in the instant case that the Respondent has landed properties.

“It is unfortunate that while the Respondent trusted the Petitioner to allow him to put his name in the documents of title of her properties, the Petitioner still had reason to maltreat her by sending her out of the matrimonial home they jointly build to a single room he allocated in the L- shaped building.

“He also sent her children from her previous marriage out of their (parties’) matrimonial home. As if that was not enough, the Petitioner had the Respondent and her child, his son, locked up in prison after a dispute over their matrimonial home. No woman who has invested in the progress of her marriage deserves to be so treated.

“These facts show to the court that the petitioner comfortably instituted this action with the hope of ultimately and absolutely retaining the sole ownership of their matrimonial home. No Court will endorse such act of injustice against the Respondent or any other woman.”                                                                                 

Click here to download the judgment.