₦airaland Forum

gr8child:
When last was anyone able to use the Naira Card to pay for any international transaction?

I ordered 3 items from AliExpress on the 27th of this month. I've not been able to order since then, used GTB master card

Your contact

SmartyPants:
Defamation is no longer actionable per se. Damages ought not to have been awarded because none were incurred.

I'm pretty sure they'll not file an action for defamation without showing cause/damages. We don't have the originating processes to go through, so you can't be so sure. The trial judge would have thrown it out

SmartyPants:
Definitely will be overturned on appeal.

On what basis?

Oga what is your gender exactly?? Last year you were a female and this year male �

Met her early this year. Flew in from the states because of her. The relationship has been a dream come true but.....
I'm a single father and ladies tend to turn me to an ATM once they know who I really am. The money is not a problem but this relationship is just too sweet to allow it crash. I've been so deceptive to the extent that she virtually feeds me and pays my bills. All of them.Not knowing that I've bought a house for her close to her area. Amongst so many other things I've done for her in secret without her knowledge. I did this because I'm a master at eating breakfast. Can someone advice me on how to break the news to her and if you were her how will you feel for what I've done. I'm not new to this forum so I'll be expecting your insults and positive contribution.
PS. I want to marry her thus this inquiry.

It's just to meet the bail conditions. Like providing a surety

pansophist:
Lawyers. I'm yet to see a female lawyer that is not filled with useless pride. It is also common to think you don't know anything if you correct them. So yea, lawyers. That's my only no no profession.

What if you meet one that's not proud? Or you get to love one before you know that she's a lawyer?

ChieduJoshua081:
Lawyers already?

yes or CAC accredited officer

ChieduJoshua081:
I want to register my company called tohbam located at www.tohbam.com. It is split into three parts; E-commerce, Agriculture and Electricity. Advice me on which of these legal extensions I should go with.

PLC, Ltd, LLC, Inc, Co or if there is any other one.

we have just Plc, ltd and a company ltd by guarantee

you'll need to get a lawyer to put you through the requirements of any of the above and to do the actual registration at CAC

babyfaceafrica:
lolz..1872....

some of the laws our legislators incoperate are even older than that

boostdom:
Hmmm. Priceless20, you have not won yet. This looks edited. Just state the decided cases for me to look them up and I'll also look for the cases that support my view.

yes it was copied from a file , those are decided cases, this is the citation
Snyder v. People, 26 Mich. 106 (1872).
Troare v. McClelland,43 a habeas corpus proceeding before theSupreme Court of Albany County. The relator, Dorothy Troare, was charged with grand larceny, first degree, in violation of Section 1294,subdivision 2, of the Penal Law,44 for allegedly taking and carrying away from her husband eighty dollars. The sole question raised by the application for a writ of habeas corpus was whether or not a wife may be guilty of larceny of her husband's property. The court stated the common law rule and held that unless abrogated by statute it re-mains in force. Finding no derogatory statute, the court said :The penal statutes of this state must be strictly construed and if the legislature intended that one spouse could charge the other with such crime, it should have used such language as to have left no room for doubt. The Legislature had power to enact a statute that would cover a situation of the character here presented. It evidently did not see fit so to do. The court found no New York case to be "precisely in point", and quoted freely from State v. Arnold, Snyder v. People, supra,and State v. Phillips, supra

in an early case, Snyder v. People, the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed a conviction for arson of a husband who had burned his wife's house. Title to the house was in the wife, but it was not clearly shown on trial whether it was the dwelling of both spouses. The court apparently held that if the husband lived in the house with his wife it was his dwelling and, hence not "the dwelling-house of another" within the meaning of the arson statute, but that it would not be his dwelling if he were living apart from his wife. This reasoning seems to have been the basis for the reversal of the conviction,but the court also referred to the common law rule that a husband cannot be guilty of arson in burning his wife's house, and considered the effects of statutory changes in the rights of married women,saying :As regards her individual property, the law has done little more than to give legal rights and remedies to the wife, where before, by settlement or contract, she might have established corresponding equitable rights and remedies, and the unity of man and woman in the marriage relation, is no more broken up by giving her a statutory ownership and control of property, than it would have been before the statute, by such family settlement as should give her the like ownership and control. At the common law, the power of independent action and judgment was in the husband alone; now it is in her also,for many purposes; but the authority in her, to own and convey property, an sue and be sued, is no more inconsistent with the marital unity, than the corresponding authority in him.In this opinion appears the view that the unity of husband and wife does not consist solely of property rights

boostdom:
Is this from a decided case? Give me citations of interpretations and their decided cases that there is no criminal responsibility in a marriage in Nigeria. If such data is not handy from Nigeria, give me from another country whose judiciary is based on the common law.

I am not a lawyer, are you one?

I'm a law student
The question here to be considered is whether or not as the law stands today in Nigeria, acts by a spouse against the other's property, which would be criminal if committed against the property of a third person, are crimes. Such acts at the common law were not crimes because in contemplation of law husband and wife were one. But today, in many jurisdictions where the wife is almost completely emancipated the courts have continued to hold that neither spouse may be guilty of larceny or embezzlement of the other's property .Apparently this result is not logical, for if the spouses' immunity rested upon the "unity" concept, a destruction of the elements which constituted the unity should, a fortiori, also destroy the immunity. Nevertheless, a "legal", if not logical, reason may be found. The common law rule as to immunity has rarely, if ever, been expressly altered by the married women's enabling acts. These statutes are in derogation of the common law, and hence are to be strictly construed.16 Giving to these statutes a strict construction will result only in an alteration of the rights of the spouses, but will not give the state a right which it may protect by criminal proceedings.'This affords a technical, but certainly not a satisfactory, reason for the refusal of the majority of the states to abandon the old rule of immunity. It is more than likely that social policy has always been at the bottom of the immunity although the courts have found it easier to attribute it to the fiction that husband and wife are one person. State v. Phillips.22 In this case the court held that the married women's enabling acts should not be construed to extend beyond their necessary intendment, and that the common law rules prohibiting civil actions between spouses and giving a spouse immunity from criminal prosecution for injuries to the other's property should be abrogated only by clearly expressed legislation. The court went beyond this,however, and assigned social interest in the family relation as an additional reason for reversing the conviction of the defendant wife for larceny. In this connection the court said:Moreover, the unity of husband and wife as recognized in the common law, is founded not merely on a community of goods, but upon the recognized obligation of both to the family and to society. The unit of society is not the individual but the family; and whatever tends to undermine the family, by their repealable laws of nature will crumble and destroy the foundations of society and the state. So that the peace and sanctity of the home and family are the ultimate reason for the common-law rule. We do not think that we can safely hold by mere inference that the Legislature has taken such a long step in the direction of destructive legislation.In another leading case the Supreme Court of held that a wife could not be guilty of larceny of her husband's property.The court took the view that although the rule of strict constructionof criminal statutes in favor of the accused no longer prevails, the "fair import" rule did not justify the creation of a crime by implication, from the married woman's act.

boostdom:
What's the interpretation? That there is no criminal responsibility between spouses in a Christian marriage?

While largely disposed of across the country, the concept of tort interspousal immunity may impact a claim for theft or fraud. This legal concept arose out of the belief that the married couple was one person, typically the identity of the male. Therefore, the law opined that a spouse should not be able to sue himself. Additionally, courts theorized that spouses suing each other would lead to disharmony in the marital home. in other words, there is no criminal liability btw spouses in a Christian marriage I.e a marriage that meets the requirements as stipulated by the matrimonial causes act

MrBrownJay1:
if thats what you believe, and you are a woman, then i do feel sorry for you... so you mean to say that if you aint in the mood for sex, are sikc or injured, and you husband demands sex, you will unwillingly have sex with him and/or let him rape you?!

sex (whether married or not) should be consensual, the minute you are forced against your will to have sex then it is rape (whether married or not)

the same shiit with stealing... if you take something without the consent of your partner then it is indeed stealing. if your husband has a private bank account for rainy days (or whatever) and you decide to take from it without his consent (to buy brazilian hair) then stealing it is, whether you are married or not.

Mr. man, keep your sorry to yourself! did you read where I said its wrong biblically? many countries have adjusted their laws but Nigeria seems to be backward! as bad as it seems that's the law wether you agree or not and pls don't use me as ur example, I didn't say its right!!!

boostdom:
Ok, I have seen it.

The section literally states that a spouse is criminally responsible of any act to the other's property in marriage if it would also be an offence if they weren't in marriage.

The above is the standing literal interpretation.

The clause is if they are in a Christian marriage, criminal proceeding can not be instituted while they are living together.

For the above clause, it concedes that not all marriages will be a Christian marriage for diverse and obvious reasons. It also concedes that what is inherently criminal in a Christian marriage can be instituted after they stop living together. This clause does not condone criminal activity in a Christian marriage.

That will be all from me here.

lol. that's what I've been trying to say, thats the interpretation of the court also. I rest my case too

boostdom:
I looked up Section 36 and it deals with "Stealing with violence: extortion by threat". And it has eleven sub-sections. What are you infering here?

No. It talks abt liability of husband and wife for offences committed by either with respect to the others property and it doesn't have any sub sec

boostdom:
The distinction is that there must be CONSCIOUS AWARENESS on the part of the other spouse. It is beyond spousal privilege and is indeed criminal to take money or spousal property specific to a spouse without their consent. It's the same legal principle with "tenants-in-common" joint account.

ok. So how can you explain section 36 of the criminal code act?

boostdom:
Read what marital rape is. You are out of your mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

You can keep you insult to yourself! Despite all those laws put in place, as bad as it is in nig, it is not implimented! Go on and check decided cases on marital rape and see for urself b4 pouring your insults

boostdom:
Educate yourself on the "limitations of fiduciary duty" in marriage. Spousal privilege does not include taking your spouse's money without his consent.

Still in the process of educating myself, if a spouse cannot be criminally responsible in taking the others property, why is money any different?

MrBrownJay1:
stealing is stealing, whether married or not, just like raping is raping whether married or not...

When a spouse takes from another without consent is not stealing, neither is having sex forcefully or without consent rape. It only becomes stealing or raping when done outside marriage

tunjilana:
but if the man takes her own money without consent it is stealing abi :
)

it is the same thing. A married man or woman cannot steal from the spouse by virtue of their marriage,they are one. You cannot steal from yourself can you?

Legally a wife cannot steal from her husband, consent or no consent! But in the biblical sense, its stealing and a sin

Evaberry:
....

This is story that touch.


after stressing yourself, doing this 1 and that 1

as a new wig you will still be earning 10-15k a month(if you are lucky)

maybe its only 'charge and bail' lawyers that you've come across!

This international school should have a name na, what do you think?

uzolexis:
I just paid last week sha. In their Ikoyi office.

OK. I think they are faster in Abuja headquarters. goodluck

uzolexis:
Nope still yet to get it

really? where? is the person you paid to not hastening the process for you? that's bad o!

uzolexis:
how much were you charged for the passport? i was charged 50k and the official price is 15k

but you collected it early right?

Kinghenreey:
Nawaooo.
UK embassy are ready to give us visa within the same day and yet our immigration officers couldn't get us passport within a week.

I ve been going to immigration office for 2weeks just to collect passport.
E go better

where did you apply? you can get your passport the same day you apply

Kinghenreey:
Nawaooo.
UK embassy are ready to give us visa within the same day and yet our immigration officers couldn't get us passport within a week.

I ve been going to immigration office for 2weeks just to collect passport.
E go better

where did you apply? you can get your passport the same day you apply