The Court of Appeal in Lagos ruled that the Minister of Interior and local government councils have the authority to conduct, celebrate, contract, and register weddings within their boundaries in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act.
It so admonished both parties to refrain from attempting to arrogate to themselves the only authority to conduct, celebrate, and register formal marriages.
In a judgement delivered on Wednesday, August 2, 2023, a copy of which was recently obtained by Channels TV, the appellate court also held that the restriction imposed by the Federal High Court, Lagos, directing the Minister of Interior, to only conduct, celebrate and contract marriages in the marriage registries situated at Ikoyi, Lagos and Federal Capital Territory Abuja is wrong and erroneous.
The lead judgement was delivered by Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar and adopted by Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada (presiding) and Justice Fredrick Eziakpono Oho.
On Dec. 8, 2021, Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, Lagos, granted an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Minister of Interior from further contracting marriages under the Marriage Act within the plaintiffs’ local governments but exempted marriages conducted in the marriage registries of Ikoyi Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
The plaintiffs were Eti-Osa Local Government, Lagos State; Egbor Local Government, Edo State; Owerri Municipal Local Government, Imo State; and Port Harcourt City Local Government.
They all filed the suit jointly against the Minister of Interior, the Attorney General of the Federation, and Anchor Dataware Solution Limited.
They had asked Justice Osiagor to grant the following reliefs:
“1. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant himself and/or either by his privies, agents or delegates from further contracting marriages under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 within the Plaintiff’s Local Government Councils Area.
2. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant himself and/or either by his privies, agents or delegates from further celebrating marriages under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 within the Plaintiff’s Local Government Councils Area.
3. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant himself and/or either by his privies, agents or delegates from further granting or issuing certificates of marriage under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 within the Plaintiff’s Local Government Councils Area.
4. An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st Defendant himself and/or either by his privies, agents or delegates from further registering marriages contracted or celebrated under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 within the Plaintiff’s Local Government Councils Area.
5. An Order of Honourable Court directing the 1st Defendant to transmit or return all marriage certificates issued within the respective Plaintiff’s Local Government Councils subsequently after the delivery of the Judgment of Hon. Justice R. Oyindamola Olomojobi of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 between Prince L Hasstrup & Anor vs. Eti-Osa Local Government Council & 2 Ors, delivered on the 8th day of June 2004
6. An Order directing the 1st Defendant to return all fees/money paid by couples since the Judgment in suit no FHC/L/870/2002 delivered on the 8th of June 2004 to the Plaintiffs’ Marriage Registries for re-issuance.
7. An Order of this Honourable Court sealing all the Federal Marriage Registry established by the 1st Defendant in the Applicants’ Local Government in Nigeria or alternatively restrict the 1st Defendant Marriage Registry or Agencies or Officers to only issue “LICENCES” to places of public worship for the celebration of marriage or to contract Marriage under the Act at the Local Government Registrar’s office or to celebrate marriage in a licence place of worship”.
After considering all the issues, Justice Osaigor granted Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 4 while Reliefs 5 and 6 were refused. Relief 7 was granted in part.
Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Lower Court, the Appellant (the Minster of Interior) filed its Notice of Appeal on 20th January 2022.
The four Local Government Councils also dissatisfied with some parts of the Judgment filed and initiated a cross-appeal challenging same. No processes were filed by the Attorney General of the Federation and Anchor Dataware Solution Limited.
Having gone through the issues put forward by the parties, the Court of Appeal distilled 2 issues for determination from the appellants’ grievance:
1. Whether the lower court was right when it held that the plea of doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ action?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when it granted the reliefs sought by the 1st to 4th Respondents and found that the Judgment in Suit No: FHC/870/2002 granted exclusive rights to the 1st – 4th Respondents and other Local Governments in Nigeria to conduct, celebrate and register marriages within their local government?
On issue 1, the appellate court stated “that the doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy that there must be an end to litigation. An action cannot be allowed to go on ad infinitum”.
A plea of res judicata presumes that a matter or issue between the same parties or their privies has been determined on its merit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The plea therefore constitutes a bar to any fresh action between the same parties on the same issue.
The Appellants had contended that the subject matter and reliefs of the 1st to 4th Respondents’ action is identical with that of another Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002, whose applicants are one Prince I. Haastrup and Miss Abeebat O. Akinfemi while the Respondents in the action are: Eti-Osa Local Government, Att. Gen of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and Hon. Minister of Internal Affairs.
The court held that “the nomenclature of the parties at a first glance extirpates any inference that the parties in the two actions are the same”.
It also held that “the 1st to 4th Respondents in the present suit commenced Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 in order to enforce the declaratory reliefs made by the court in FHC/L/870/2002.
In the enforcement of the said Judgment, the fresh proceedings in Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 cannot be tainted by the doctrine of res judicata.
The appeal court therefore concluded that the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the present suit and the issue was consequently resolved against the Appellant.
On issue 2, the court found that the 1st to 4th Respondent’s action was aimed at the enforcement of the Judgment in the previous Suit No: FHC/L/CS/870/2002, which was neither challenged by either of the parties nor the subject of any appeal.
The court held that in the absence of an appeal against the judgment, its competence cannot be challenged through the back door as the decision remains extant.
Justice Umar noted that “both parties have agreed in their respective briefs of argument that a designated office in a Marriage District is statutorily recognized as one of the venues for the celebration and contraction of marriage. However, it is the Appellant’s contention that a marriage district does not include a local government council.”
“I am of the view that the Appellant has misconstrued the rationale and legislative intent behind the identification of marriage districts in the Marriage Act. In addition to the Marriage Act, several subsidiary legislations were enacted for proper description of the marriage districts and the registrars of marriage in these districts.”
“One of the subsidiary legislations is the Marriage (Appointment of Principal Registrar, Registrars etc.) Notice (L.N 72 of 1971). The first Schedule of this legislation categorizes the various marriage districts within the administrative regions which were in operation at the time. It follows logically that following the abolition of the geographical regions and the creation of states from the old regions, the functions of the marriage districts will be designated to the states/local governments for administrative purposes.”
“I am therefore in complete agreement with the 1st to 4th Respondents that the local government council constitutes one of the forums for the celebration and contraction of marriage. As a corollary to this finding, it must be stated that the Appellant and the 1st to 4th Respondents are entitled to contract and celebrate marriages at the local government council in due compliance with the provisions of the Marriage Act.”
“Consequently, neither of the parties can arrogate to itself exclusive rights to the celebration and contraction of marriages. Neither the provisions of the law nor the decision in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 confers exclusive rights to the Appellant or the 1st to 4th Respondents to conduct, celebrate or register marriages.”
“The implication of the foregoing is that the contract between the Appellant and the 6th Respondent which seeks to oust the rights of the 1st to 4th Respondents in the celebration and contraction of marriages is illegal and unlawful.”
“There is no basis for the lower court to restrain the Appellant from issuing marriage certificates, contracting, celebrating, registering marriages within the local government councils.”
“At the risk of repetition, it is pertinent to state that the Appellant and the 1st to 4th Respondents have the vires to conduct, celebrate, contract and register marriages within the local government council.”
“This issue is therefore resolved in part in favour of the Appellant.”
On the cross-appeal, the court of appeal formulated a single issue for determination.
“Whether the Cross Appellants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in its Amended Originating Summons.”
Justice Umar resolved the sole issue in the cross-appeal against the Cross-Appellants and dismissed the same for lacking in merit.
“On the whole, the substantive appeal initiated by the Appellants is resolved in the following terms:
1. The action commenced by the 1st to 4th Respondents at the lower court is not tainted by the doctrine of res judicata.
2. The lower court is wrong in granting reliefs 1-4 of the reliefs sought by the 1st to 4th Respondents and granting reliefs 7 as endorsed on the amended originating summons in part.
3. The lower court was correct in refusing reliefs 5 and 6 as endorsed on the 1st to 4th Respondent’s amended originating summons.
4. The Appellant and the 1st to 4th Respondents have the vires to celebrate, contract, and register marriages between prospective couples.
Accordingly, the Judgment of the lower Court coram D. E. Osiagor, J. delivered on the 8th day of December 2021 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/816/2018 succeeds and fails in part.”