Traditional Marriage Versus Marriage Under The Act....

Traditional marriage is different from marriage under the Act.

Marriage under the Act is one done at the Registry. Now, the church marriage at times can be one under the Act as some churches take the marriage registry from the marriage registry after the priests have been conferred with the authority of an authorized person at the registry(hope that isn't too confusing). Therefore some churches like the Anglican churches and the Catholics, Baptist churches and those old churches most times have this authority. 

This is the reason you are asked to go fill a form at your local government /registry and it's pasted for a duration of time. That's the requirement of the law.


Now, to the Traditional marriage, the law put into consideration our culture. Before the marriage Act came into force, traditional marriage was the only form of marriage. Of course, the drafters of the matrimonial Act 1970(regulating marriage under the Act or Statutory marriage) will never shut their eyes to the existence of traditional marriage‎. That's why some sections of the Act specify that no marriage contracted before this Act shall be invalid because of this new Act. It is as valid as the marriage Act but on different levels. 

NOTE that Customary court is the only court that has jurisdiction to sit on issues arising from Traditional marriage e.g dissolution of marriage. In lagos state now, customary courts do not have power over custody of children. Custody matters will be referred to family Court. On the other hand, High Court is the only court that has jurisdiction over marriage under the Act.



Then the Act says: if there is a marriage i.e a traditional marriage or marriage under the Act that is first in time, no other marriage contracted i.e court /church marriage‎ (statutory marriage) or traditional marriage shall be valid and vice versa. That is what happened in the case of the BV who commented that a certain man married his first wife traditionally and married the second under the Act. Upon his death, the traditional marriage was recognised over the other marriage. Yes that is the law.

The Act envisaged that some greedy men would want to go marry some educated women who would drag them to court to marry them thinking she will be the 'legal' wife without properly divorcing the one you married traditionally. OYO is your case .


Traditional marriage is recognised but there are some benefits the lady will not enjoy. (I term them benefits from what I have seen from law practice)

 The Eastern part of Nigeria requires that you return the bride price while in the west‎ :Yoruba it is not required.

If there are  properties in question, are there names jointly on them?

The receipt , do they point to a particular item or items bought for the house? E.g receipt for a remote control paid by xyz. Is there an account pointing to how one paid for the car or any item in the house? Not just money paid to one without description. In the high Court, if you are claiming joint ownership, you are expected to prove by evidence of receipts SHOWING you bought blocks, chairs, roof etc. 

This is the common law situation where a man is regarded as the head and the owner. Some of us lawyers have tried to make the courts see that this is no longer tenable. The time spent with the man, the support a woman gave to her husband to acquire those properties assuming the wife isn't even working and perhaps doesn't bring a dime to the table, what about her time spent in catering for the children, supporting the man, cooking etc (wife not cook, yes oh. Loll)‎, making sure the house is fixed and time spent in tending to the man, his family and friends! Is this law or practice encouraging partnership in marriage? Are we not breeding a situation where the moment two people marry, they start keeping tab on what they bought, keeping receipt etc

We don't have radical jugdes anymore that will deliver a judgement partitioning the properties without evidence of contributions. The clients too are not ready to go all the way maybe to appeal court so that one can have the stupid judgement upturned! 

A Customary court has jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage. They will ask that the man gives her a certain sum to resettle but if she has receipts and people she can call as witnesses to say when she bought block, cement etc she should get something. Most times, the customary court panel will say they don't have jurisdiction over the property but the customary court law says 'all matters arising from customary law marriage' this includes properties from the marriage. 

They also leave room for the parties to see if they can resolve issues.

Written by a BV