Month: October 2022

On a scale of one to ten, there is a huge possibility that you have witnessed a church marriage before. Or if you haven’t, you have heard it somewhere before now. Today’s gist is to examine the concept of a church marriage. What exactly is church marriage? Is it recognized under the law or is it a term that owes its usage to either convenience or ignorance?

The term Church Marriage usually arises when statutory marriage is considered. A statutory marriage is a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others. This form of marriage is regulated by the Marriage Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act. It is that type of marriage many Nigerians call Court marriage. As held in Motoh v Motoh (2011) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1274) 486, this type of marriage may be celebrated in one of these three ways: 

(a)normal registry marriages;

(b)marriages by special licence; 

(c) marriages in places of worship licensed for that purpose under section 6 of the Marriage Act. 

It is pertinent to state that these three ways cannot exist cumulatively. As such, when couples visit the registry in the morning to celebrate their marriage, coming to church some other time is a mere formality and its absence will not invalidate the marriage celebration. It’s just a matter of norms and practices.

In relation to the third way, marriages can be celebrated in churches and such a marriage celebration will have the same effect as the one celebrated in the registry by the registrar. However, it is pertinent to state that not every church in Nigeria can validly celebrate a marriage. For such a celebration to be valid, the church must be a licensed place of worship.

For a celebration of marriage in a church to be valid, the requirements under Section 21 of the Marriage Act must be followed. In Ijioma v Ijioma (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1156) 593, the Court of Appeal listed the requirements as follows:

1. The marriage must be celebrated with open doors between 8am to 6pm in the presence of at least two witnesses besides the officiating priest
2. Such celebration must be in accordance with the marriage rites and usages of the church and must be done by a recognized minister of the Church denomination or body to which such place of worship belongs. A celebration of a church marriage by a minister of another church makes the whole marriage null and void. For instance, it is contrary to law if a RCCG Pastor solemnises a marriage in a licensed Deeper Life church. It’s a marriage not the naming of a child.  

Based on these requirements, once a church is not a licensed place of worship, any celebration of marriage and production of a marriage certificate issued will not be recognized in law as the marriage will be deemed void. At best, such a marriage will be described as a mere church blessing. Obiekwe v. Obiekwe (1963) 7 ENLR 196. Nwangwa v. Ubani (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt. 526) 559. And it’s immaterial that the celebration was well conducted. It’s the license that enables the church, not its aesthetic architectural design or size of the church. 

In conclusion, church marriage is not legally one of the types of marriage in Nigeria. The term is just conveniently used to describe one of the places in which a statutory marriage can be celebrated. For a church to receive a license of celebration, certain procedures must be fulfilled. Once the license is gotten, then the celebration must compile with the provision of the law regulating it. If not, the celebration will be seen as a mere church blessing having no legal effect. 

Thank you for reading. See you next week👍

Nothing lasts forever. As such, a contract of employment could come to an end through the dismissal or retirement of an employee. However, the two are mutually exclusive. The principle of law is that once either dismissal or retirement has taken place, the other cannot follow because the two serve the same purpose. 

In Unity Bank PLC v Bako N. Chori 2021 LPELR l-55720(CA), the court per ONYEMENAM, J.C.A opined that “I acknowledge that, though the two serve the same purpose, that is, to bring to an end the life of a contract of employment, there is a clear difference. Dismissal is punitive, and usually without any terminal benefits to the employee. The employee stands disgraced and held in ignominy. On the other hand, when an employee is retired, he receives his terminal benefits under the contract of employment.”

In that case, the Respondent was an employee of the Appellant who rose to the position of a manager in one of the branches of the Appellant where he worked as a branch manager. The Appellant alleged that one of her customers applied for a facility of N5 Million but the sum of 10 Million was processed for him on the purported advice of the Respondent as the branch manager with the understanding that he will give the Respondent N5 Million to use and to later settle the account together. The Respondent responded to the said allegation and nothing was heard about it again until after his purported retirement. 

The Respondent by the policy of the bank was retired on grounds of age along with other staff. Pursuant to the said retirement, the entitlement of the Respondent was calculated and paid into his account but was withdrawn by the Appellant the same day on ground of error. The Appellant thereafter dismissed the Respondent on the ground of misconduct.

The Court held that an employer cannot legally dismiss an employee who had earlier retired since, after his retirement, such an individual ceases to be his employee. The Respondent earlier retired on 23rd July, 2012 before the purported dismissal on 1st August 2012. Since dismissal and retirement cannot exist side by side nor follow each other, the first in time which is retirement prevails after having ended the contract of employment already.

In conclusion, this principle reflects the general principle of nature that one cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand. Given that the said individual has retired and ceased to be an employee, an employer can’t then dismiss him. Oti lor

Thank you for reading. See you next week.

Generally, capital offences are offences punishable by death. It could be committed by both adults and young persons. Where an accused person in a criminal trial is considered an adult, there is no duty on the court to inquire into his age. 

However, the duty to make an inquiry into the Age of the accused only arises when he appears to the trial court to be a juvenile. Okoro v State 1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 544) 115 C.A. For the purpose of criminal responsibility, a juvenile person in this context is someone less than Seventeen (17) years old. 

The law, as statutorily provided for in Section 272 (1)of the Criminal Procedure Code, is that where a person is convicted of an offence punishable with death and it appears to the court by which he is convicted that he was under the age of seventeen years when he committed the offence, the court shall order that he be detained during the Governor’s pleasure. 

A juvenile detained by virtue of this provision must be placed in legal custody and may be discharged by the Governor on license provided that certain requirements are met. Section 303 of the CPC. 

In State v Dau (2022) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1834) SC, the respondent in this appeal had been convicted for culpable homicide punishable with death and sentenced to fifty years imprisonment after conviction by the trial court. The respondent had hit the deceased on the head with the axe belonging to the deceased during a quarrel provoked by the said deceased. The respondent was Fourteen (14) years old at that time. He had also been imprisoned since that time spanning over Sixteen (16) years. 

On appeal, the Appeal court quashed the decision of the trial  Court and held that it was wrong and illegal for the trial court to have sentenced the respondent to Fifty (50) years imprisonment since he was a minor at the time of commission. To make up for the years he had lost as a result of this injustice, the court ordered that he be discharged and released from custody.  

Stating the rationale, the Supreme Court per Ariwoola JSC (now CJN) opined thus: “the draftsmen of section 272(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act had a good reason for absolving children and young persons from criminal liability. One of the reasons is that a child lacks the power of self-control and to understand the full import of a criminal act. If a sudden temper can cause an adult to lose control of his mind temporarily, how much more is a child? In the instant case, the respondent committed the offence whilst yet at the Age of criminal irresponsibility provided under section 272(2) of the criminal Procedure Code and section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act. Therefore, it would amount to grave injustice on the respondent to either pronounce capital punishment on him or incarcerate him for life for an offence which he committed whilst under seventeen years of Age and whilst temporarily deprived of the power of his self-control. (Pp. 82-83, paras. H-C).”