- Declares marriage valid without bride price
- Awards ₦3million damages to wife
An Upper Customary Court of Kaduna State, Kafanchan Judicial Division has held that a woman can not be sent out empty-handed from a matrimonial home when the man is no longer interested in the relationship.
The court presided by His Worship Emmanuel J. Samaila, Esq. and a Member, Mr. James K. Kajang also found that under Kamantan custom, the consent of a lady’s father, even without a bride price is sufficient to create a valid marriage.
Noting that even sex workers, who neither bear children for the men they relate with nor perform domestic chores get paid for their services, how much more a woman that bore and took care of four children for 17 years without the support of their father, Judge Samaila said: “A woman is not a baby-making machine or an inanimate home-keeping device to be used and dumped at will without consequences merely because she is married under customary law.”
Part of His Worship’s verdict in the matter between Theresa Yohanna v. Yohanna Bako wherein Theresa sought a dissolution of their marriage and the payment of N6million by Bako as damages for fending of his four children for 17 years without support reads:
“The importance of determining the nature of the relationship between the parties cannot be overstated. This is because of the rights accruing to such parties which are dependent on the legal status of the parties’ relationship…Apparently, in order to avoid his daughter giving birth at home, the Petitioner’s father opted to give her out to the Respondent in marriage, as perceived and described by her, despite the non-performance of her marriage rites, an act signified by the payment of the bride price.
“It can be deduced from the foregoing that under Kamantan custom, the consent of a lady’s father is sufficient to create a valid marriage. It is also deducible that the payment of a lady’s bride price is one of the requirements in the process of creating a valid marriage under Kamantan custom. It can also be deduced that the payment of the bride price can be postponed if the lady’s father gives his consent and his daughter to the man who impregnated her but admits responsibility.
“Considering the foregoing, we are of the view that the non-payment of the bride price by the Respondent does not affect the validity of the parties’ marriage under Kamantan custom and we so hold. Rather, the non-payment of the bride price by the Respondent speaks of his character seeing that he was comfortable living and procreating with another man’s daughter without seeing the need to honour her parents who allowed him to take their daughter as wife…
“In proof of her claim for damages, the Petitioner, as PW1 testified that she has been the one solely taking care of the parties’ children for the past 17 years after her separation with the Respondent. Her evidence that the children remained under her care after the Respondent married another woman and moved to Port Harcourt was not challenged under cross-examination.
“Even though the Petitioner was away from their matrimonial home after being sent away by the Respondent, it is indisputable that she has been there for her children… It is not in dispute that the parties lived together in the Respondent’s family house where she gave birth to four children who were so used to their grandparents’ house that they refused to move with the couple to their matrimonial home…
“[M]ust a wife make monetary contribution to the building of a matrimonial home before she owns a stake in it? We answer this question in the negative. A woman who was impregnated by a man and taken home to live with him and bear more children for him cannot be said to have made no contribution to the building of their matrimonial home.
“A woman, especially one married under customary law, is not a man’s slave or a piece of property a man acquires for domestic chores and procreation that can be dumped at will without consequences. The dignity of women married under customary law is not an iota less than that of their sisters in statutory marriage. The reason is simple: they are all equal beneficiaries of the constitutional right to the dignity of person. See Section 34 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
“It is disheartening and disturbing that a man sees nothing wrong in taking a woman away from her parents and dishonourably neglects to go and perform her marriage rites despite having four children by her. We are perplexed: how will such a man even have the moral standing to say that the woman has made no contribution to the building of their matrimonial home?
“A woman who gave her all and was committed to her marriage to the extent of birthing four children with the Respondent cannot be said to have contributed nothing to the building of their matrimonial home just because she probably did not make any direct financial contribution that she can prove.
“Secondly, should the labours of the Petitioner as a homemaker and nurturer of the parties’ children, who also met the Respondent’s conjugal needs, be treated as the works of a mere maid or a mistress? Even sex workers, who neither bear children for the men they relate with nor perform chores in a matrimonial home amidst discharging parental duties to such men’s children, get paid by their patrons. How much more deserving is a wife to be treated with dignity rather than ignominy such as having her personal effects thrown out of her matrimonial home in the full glare of her children and passersby and left to fend for herself for 17 years while the Respondent remarries and moves on with his life?
“How is such a woman expected to start life after giving her all to bearing and nurturing their children and also building their matrimonial home? A woman is not a baby-making machine or an inanimate home-keeping device to be used and dumped at will without consequences merely because she is married under customary law. No matter the degree of animosities or irreconcilable differences which may exist between spouses, care should be taken to treat each other as persons with dignity. Being married, especially married under customary law, does not and cannot reduce or take away the dignity of a woman.
“Thirdly, is it equitable to treat a woman, such as the present Petitioner, who gave her youthful and fruitful part of her life to a marriage with the Respondent, as undeserving of a compensation in the form of damages when the man she had hope to live together with forever no longer desires her as a wife and throws her out of their matrimonial home?
“Finally, can it, in good conscience, be held that a woman such as the Petitioner is undeserving of a compensation having lost the love of her life, the comfort of her matrimonial home and the opportunity to nurture her children as every mother would desire?
“As a way of treating women with the dignity they deserve and are constitutionally entitled to, a woman who is no longer desired by a man ought to be compensated when the man sends her out of their matrimonial home empty-handed, especially the Petitioner in the instant case who was left to fend for herself and nurture their children for 17 years while being married to the Respondent. It is noteworthy that the provisions the Respondent said he made for his children is not the major constituent of what the welfare of a child entails as the “happiness of the child and his psychological development” are more important. See Odogwu v. Odogwu (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.225) 539 at 559-560, paras. H-A. That was what the Respondent could not give as he was far away in Port Harcourt with another wife…
“Therefore, damages in the sum of N3million is hereby awarded in favour of the Petitioner against the Respondent. The whole sum she claimed could have been awarded to her but for the fact that she has children with the Respondent who will still be catered for. Moreover, she is also expected to make contributions, monetary or otherwise, towards the upkeep of their children as part of her motherly care.
“The sum of N100,000 is awarded as the cost of this action in favour of the Petitioner against the Respondent. The total judgment sum, N3.1million shall be paid within 30 days from today, 9th January, 2025. Interest at the rate of 10% shall accrue on the judgment sum until the whole sum is fully and finally paid…”
See Also: How India calculates the value of women’s housework
Click here to download the full judgment
Yohanna-v.-Yohanna-2025