11/06/2025
WHETHER PROPERTY OF HUSBAND AND WIFE SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY UPON DIVORCE UNDER NIGERIAN LAW.
SEE AGUOLU v. AGUOLU
Citation: (2025) LPELR-80269(CA) Court: Court of Appeal
Issue: Matrimonial Causes – Settlement of Property
Legal Question: Is a party in matrimonial proceedings automatically entitled to an equal share of matrimonial property solely by virtue of marriage, without proving contribution?
Summary:
In this appeal, the Appellant sought not only the dissolution of her marriage but also a 50-50 division of the properties acquired during the subsistence of the union, which she classified as matrimonial property. While the Court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and affirmed the dissolution under Section 15 of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA), it held a different view on the claim for property settlement.
The Court emphasized that the settlement of property is governed by Section 72 of the MCA, which requires any party seeking such relief to establish:
That the property qualifies as matrimonial property;
The nature and extent of their contribution (whether financial or otherwise) to the acquisition or maintenance of said property; and
That it would be just, fair, and equitable for the Court to make an order for settlement in their favour.
The Court found that although the properties in question were acquired during the marriage, the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her contribution to their acquisition. The mere existence of a marriage—even one that endured before a separation of over 22 years—does not entitle a party to an equal share of assets.
Referencing authorities such as AKINBUWA v. AKINBUWA (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 661 and KAFI v. KAFI (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 27) 175, the Court restated that contributions need not be monetary; however, they must be clearly demonstrated. Citing Fribance v. Fribance (1957) 1 All ER 357 and Ulrich v. Ulrich (1968) 1 All ER 67, the Court reaffirmed that entitlement arises from mutual contribution and joint benefit, not simply marital status.
Although the trial Court had exercised its discretion to award some relief to the Appellant, she appealed, insisting on an equal (50/50) division. The appellate Court found no basis to overturn the trial Court's decision, concluding that the Appellant failed to establish why such a division would be equitable in the circumstances.
Held: An equal share in matrimonial property cannot be granted solely on the basis of marriage without credible evidence of contribution. The appeal lacked merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Per DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, JCA (Pp 24 – 29, Paras E – C)
"The Appellant cannot merely assert a right to half of the matrimonial properties without demonstrating the material basis upon which such a claim could be considered fair and equitable by the Court."
![ON NNAMDI KANU'S TRIAL. [TRIAL CONTINUES...]The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice...](https://img3.medioq.com/770/651/118241177706510.jpg)
