By Ogbu, Blessing Ekpere, Esq.
I have always marvelled at the sheer uncanniness of couples fighting and inflicting grievous injuries on each other and tearing each other emotionally with mean and deeply incisive vitriols and still find, somehow and miraculously, the sexual urge, passion and attraction to make love to each other that same day, or a day or a couple of days after. 😀 😀
I have always wondered if I was the only person who believes such inconsistency can be described, well, charitably, as a quirky eccentricity, or, harshly, as a physiological aberration.
Well, it seems the High Court of Plateau State and the Court of Appeal also noticed and took note of the oddity in one particular case that was decided in 1992. In the case of Anagbado v. Anagbado (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 216) 207, the Petitioner and the Respondent had six children in a space of twelve years.
In January 1986, the Petitioner, Justine Emenike Anagbado (the husband), filed this Petition for the dissolution of the marriage between him and the Respondent, Esther Ifebube Anagbado (the wife) on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. The facts upon which he urged the Court to find that the marriage had broken down irretrievably were that the wife was cruel to him and had behaved in a manner that he could not reasonably be expected to live with her.
Some of the instances of the alleged cruelty alleged were: The wife was always making fun of him in the presence of the children; the wife was mocking his deformity by placing obstacles on his way, knowing that he had bad eyesight; the wife was adulterous; the wife was fetish.
In her defence, the wife averred that she loved the man so much that they had six children between 1974, when they got married, and 1986 when the husband presented the petition for dissolution of the marriage. She also claimed that the man was being instigated by his family members to divorce her, not that he, on his own, wanted to divorce her.
The trial court found for the Respondent and dismissed the petition on the grounds that the Petitioner could not prove cruelty and adultery. The Petitioner also included grounds not recognised under section 15(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, thereby rendering the petition itself incompetent in limine.
The man was not happy with the judgment of the trial court and therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal (Jos Division). The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal (Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, J.C.A. (as he then was, later, JSC and, later, CJN), Yekini Olayiwola Adio, J.C.A. (as he then was, later, JSC) and Obinnaya Anunobi Okezie, J.C.A. reviewed the records of appeal and unanimously dismissed the appeal – not because the Petitioner agglutinated competent grounds with incompetent grounds – but, rather, because he could not prove cruelty and adultery.
Now, this is the part I find simultaneously hilarious and instructive. At pages 218-219, paras. H-D of the Law Report, Adio, JCA (as he then was, later, JSC) who delivered the leading judgment, wondered inter alia thus:-
“Prima facie, one might be tempted to ask what the fact that a couple had six children within a period of twelve years or the fact that they were having sexual intercourse regularly within the same period had to do with the question whether one of them had been cruel to the other. The provision of section 12(a) of the Evidence Act is that facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact and under section 12(b) of the Act, facts not otherwise relevant are relevant if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact probable or improbable.
“The fact of the respondent having a child for the appellant practically every other year for a period of twelve years and of the fact that even on the 6th October, 1985, the appellant had sexual intercourse with the respondent, particularly when virtually all the allegations concerning cruelty made against the respondent related to incidents which took place before October, 1985, were inconsistent with the averment that the respondent for the most part of the marriage had behaved in such a way that the petitioner could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent or that the marriage had irretrievably broken down.
“If the situation was so bad in the matrimonial home that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, the appellant could not have been putting the respondent in family way every other year for a period of twelve years. The learned trial judge was therefore right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove cruelty. The answer to the question raised in the second issue is in the affirmative.”
😂😂
Abeg, make I run go take my bottle of Hero.
©Ogbu, Blessing Ekpere, Esq.
28/12/2024
