blaise26abj:


That judge is just emotional . Joint ownership when there is an absence of the signature of the claimant ? In nigeria ? I am sure it will be kicked to the curb in higher courts .

First wife consented , 2nd wife dey Cause wahala . Man buy house for 2nd wife , yet e no want make the man retire in peace .

The Judge is being Emotional...the judgement definitely won't stand in higher court.


It lacked precedent.

this is southern palava it will never happen in the north

Industrious wife.
A quarter to husband.

oluwaseyi0:
some men are just mad

if you go through the write the woman even directly contributed to the house

the woman contributed 200k as part of the 400,000 payment
she paid another money after loan people nearly sold the house
and married for over 35 year, yet the man thought he own the house fully and exclusively alone

But the man said the house is not 400,000....and I understand a house in festac is Worth more than 400k.

Besides, they still legally married and the case is about consent before disposition of the asset not sharing formula.

I have never like judgement of any female judge.........it always lace with emotional bias

Onyinyechiugly1:


One down, more to follow suit.

I hope u know all lands belong to the government, and your ancestors didn't come down with any?

The entire IGBOLAND, can't do shim, when that verdict will be passed.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE..A1

REALITY CHECK...F9

OBI CUBANA DEY GREET YOU

Marriage of over 35yrs crashed because the devil waited for them for that long so they wouldn't enjoy there night time!

As a married fellow i rebuke such for everyone reading this...

Truly we need to get close to God!!!

Mobog:
■ Marriage of over 35yrs crashed because the devil waited for them for that long so they wouldn't enjoy there night time! As a married fellow i rebuke such for everyone reading this... Truly we need to get close to God!!!

And you think it is sane of you to blame an ojuju for poor judgment on the part of the individuals in the marriage? Shame no catch you?

Ykc2:
it won't work in nigeria ,let use nnewi as an example ,nnewi is like mini urban city so if a man build a house in his father's compound at nnewi and divorce the wife will the wife now come to drag his father's compound with him?can regina Daniel's drag his husband properties with him?

You don't get it or pretent not to understand in order to justify your misogyny.
The law recognises properties acquired by contributions by both partners in a marriage contract as joint properties, not properties inherited or acquired before marriage.

wirinet:

You don't get it or pretent not to understand in order to justify your misogyny.
The law recognises properties acquired by contributions by both partners in a marriage contract as joint properties, not properties inherited or acquired before marriage.

ok no vex now I got it

seunayantokun:

A court's pronouncement is viewed as the correct interpretation of the relevant extant law(s).

and when there are conflicting judgements?

kazyhm:


But the man said the house is not 400,000....and I understand a house in festac is Worth more than 400k.

Besides, they still legally married and the case is about consent before disposition of the asset not sharing formula.

I have never like judgement of any female judge.........it always lace with emotional bias

We are talking about 1980s and not 2020s. In the 1980s N400k was a lot of money. A brand new Mercedes-Benz car in the 80s was about N20,000. To me N400k is even too expensive.

jahsharon:


The female judge is MAD. This case will get to the Supreme Court. So all a woman need to do in her life is to fucck a man, then she automatically owns half of his life’s hard work.

E no go better for her Mama. Na motor go jam her

Nothing will happen to her. You watch your own step

Mindlog:


Let the man go f.u.c.c.k his fellow man and raise a family with him, so no woman can lay claim to half of his life's hard work.

What of the barren women who cannot raise family?

Appeal court headed by a man will shoot down this pronouncement without any constitutional backing

jice:


What of the barren women who cannot raise family?

Appeal court headed by a man will shoot down this pronouncement without any constitutional backing

A woman who can not biologically have children can raise a family by having a child/children through surrogacy if her eggs are viable or she can adopt a child or children who she would raise as hers and they would call her mother and they can inherit whatever she owned.

It will get to the Supreme Court as it won't stop at the Appeal court.

Hakimi cause this shit for our country

I thought the man bought a three bedroom flat for the wife, what's her problem again.

jice:
■ What of the barren women who cannot raise family? Appeal court headed by a man will shoot down this pronouncement without any constitutional backing

I don't follow! Is it that you think the courts measure the contributions of a female partner in marriage by the number of issues she can boast of? Is this still the year 2023 that we are in or what?

Kobojunkie:
And you think it is sane of you to blame an ojuju for poor judgment on the part of the individuals in the marriage? Shame no catch you?

I've only talked on how i feel about their marriage disaster, you do not need to reprove or castigate me on my opinion.

Quoting my view isn't necessary just move on to say what you feel too? ABEG AVOID QUOTING ME JOR!

Someone said marriage is poverty alleviation. He wasn't wrong.

Mobog:
■ I've only talked on how i feel about their marriage disaster, you do not need to reprove or castigate me on my opinion. Quoting my view isn't necessary just move on to say what you feel too? ABEG AVOID QUOTING ME JOR!

Log off nairaland and don't forget to deactivate your account entirely so I won't be able to quote you then. With your sort of opinion, here in the year 2023.... ***Shakes head *** ...Nigeria does not need it. The world would be disgusted by it.

I think the caption does not really represent what transpired in the case. According to the report here, it appear the judge is convinced with the wives claim that they co-owned the property as she has contributed equally on the retaining of the property after several attempts by other parties to takeover the property. She also claimed that she ahd at a time paid up to N1.5m to off-set legal fees to win a case over the land for the two of them. Therefore, the judge's judgment i think is premised on the judge's comviction that the woman was truthful in her claim. Not that there is a general judgement that wives are joint owners with their husbands on their husbands properties.

Kobojunkie:
First wife consented?

It is in the post. The man has 2 wives .

blaise26abj:
■ It is in the post. The man has 2 wives .

It only mentioned the man had a first wife, a wife he is probably not even aware of if she is still alive or dead today. So, how does that amount to consent from his first wife?

francotunsco:
■ I think the caption does not really represent what transpired in the case. According to the report here, it appear the judge is convinced with the wives claim that they co-owned the property as she has contributed equally on the retaining of the property after several attempts by other parties to takeover the property. She also claimed that she ahd at a time paid up to N1.5m to off-set legal fees to win a case over the land for the two of them. Therefore, the judge's judgment i think is premised on the judge's comviction that the woman was truthful in her claim. Not that there is a general judgement that wives are joint owners with their husbands on their husbands properties.

What is important is the ruling. That is what matters more than all that gobbledegook you are attempting to compute there.

It said men hold such properties in ‘constructive trust’ for the family.
A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has added a new vista to the rights of women in Nigeria as it declares that wives are joint owners of the properties with their husbands as men hold such properties in ‘constructive trust’ for the family.

The court ruled that “indirect contributions of a wife to the marital property should not be quantified in monetary terms in order to entitle her to a share of the property”.

“Constructive Trust,“ the court said, quoting the English Master of Rolls, Lord Denning, “is a trust imposed by law wherever justice and good conscience require a remedy by which the court can enable an aggrieved spouse or party to obtain restitution and the success of the party’s case does not depend on his or her direct physical or monetary contribution to the building or acquisition of the property.”

Kobojunkie:
It only mentioned the man had a first wife, a wife he is probably not even aware of if she is still alive or dead today. So, how does that amount to consent from his first wife?

Being mischievous or didn’t read or can’t read or can’t comprehend ,I don’t know which one is your problem . Go back and read the man’s testimony . He sought both wives consents .

blaise26abj:
■ Being mischievous or didn’t read or can’t read or can’t comprehend ,I don’t know which one is your problem . Go back and read the man’s testimony . He sought both wives consents .

My mistake!

Ok.
You are mad.

If that is the case, l will change all my property to my mum's name.

Mindlog:
The second wife he married in court as part of his "retirement package" 21 years after he traditionally married his first wife in 1980, don show am open eye.

I am imagining the first wife and children, shaking their head.

And those making noise with the 'Hakim's solution",....they should just make sure they are their mother's only child or else when mama dies, her other children also have the right to contest for a share in the properties that has the name of their late mother on it.😂😂😂😂😂

Not if everything was willed to him

Blitzerz:
and when there are conflicting judgements?

What judgement is conflicting with this one now?

Sablexxxtoons:
Don't sensationalise the judgement.. the woman contributed severally towards that property hence the judgement

"This inference of trust, the one for the other is readily apparent when each has made a financial contribution to the purchase price or the mortgage installment."

How did the judge arrive that she actually contributed? This judgement will be quashed by higher court. Being in marriage alone does not grant you ownership of property.

seunayantokun:

What judgement is conflicting with this one now?

You have a list of all judgements made in our courts between husband and wife?

Blitzerz:

You have a list of all judgements made in our courts between husband and wife?

Can you get your hand on any law report and pull out an example for us?