The High Court dealt with a divorce case ‘as extraordinary as one can imagine’, one that spanned two decades and continents.
Background:
Mr. Taiga, now 77, and Ms. Ogbedo, now 56, were married through a customary marriage ceremony on the 16th of March 2002 yet separated no later than February 2003. Ms. Ogbedo subsequently filed a divorce petition in England, claiming they had been married under Nigerian custom laws since December 1993, a claim which was subsequently amended several times, with the final recorded date being the 16th of March 2002. Ever since there has been a trail of litigation in England and Nigeria as Mr. Taiga contested the fact that he had ever been married to her or indeed undergone any relevant ceremony.
In 1974, Mr. Taiga married Grace in Nigeria through a valid statutory marriage. Under Nigerian law, a person who is married through statutory marriage cannot take another spouse by way of customary marriage. In 1992, Mr. Taiga and Ms. Ogbedo met and had a brief relationship and later reconciled in December 1997. In June 2001, Ms. Ogbedo gave birth to twin girls which Mr. Taiga fathered. Despite the twin girls now being 23, their father maintains them under orders made pursuant to Schedule 1 of The Children Act 1989.
The chronology reveals the enormous number of financial applications and orders made since 2005. In 2008, the High Court of Lagos ruled that there had been no marriage in December 1993 and the customary marriage ceremony in March 2002 had no legal effect because Mr. Taiga was still in a statutory marriage. The Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the High Court’s decision except regarding the March 2002 ceremony. Ms. Ogbedo’s appeal came before the Nigerian Supreme Court in March 2024 but was withdrawn by Ms. Ogbedo and dismissed.
On the 7th of May 2024, Ms. Ogbedo applied in England for a nullity order and extended the Schedule 1 order which had expired. Mr. Taiga agreed to pay a further sum for the girls' continuing education and maintenance.
Decision:
The application was dismissed because the nullity application related to the same issues that had already been considered in 2013. The Court noted that “Faced with contested notes of what happened at the Supreme Court in Lagos, I cannot go any further than the order that was made in the Court” and rejected Ms. Ogbedo’s account that one of the Justices had said something in her favour. The Judge could not however rely on this assumption, as the notes from the other party’s lawyer did not provide the same account. Moreover, the Court noted that “There is no finding that there ever was a customary marriage in 2002 that has survived the Nigerian CoA’s determination.”
Implications:
This 21-year saga demonstrates the need to provide courts with adequate evidence. Courts cannot rule on one party's assumptions but they could do so on lawyers’ notes so long as they draw a similar picture, which was not the case here.
Although one can sympathise with the claimant and the fact that an award would have had great consequences for her, the courts in England are not able to set aside Nigerian law or its rulings. The ruling and saga serve as a good reminder that sometimes parties should cut their losses rather than abusing the Court process.