INTRODUCTION The recent decision by Honorable Justice Chuka Austine Obiozor of Federal High Court, Lagos delivered on 30th day of April 2018 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1760/16- EGOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDO STATE & ORS V. HON MINISTER OF INTERIOR & ORS. has been subject of varied interpretations and controversies. Many, including the Lagos State Government, have argued that by virtue of the decision the Ikoyi marriage registry operated by the Federal Government through its ministry of interior is unconstitutional and lacks vires to conduct marriages and the court has by its decision affirmed the powers of local governments to conduct marriages. This view of the decision in FHC/L/CS/1760/16, is a misconception of the judgement of the court in the suit which must be immediately corrected. This write-up seeks to set-out, for purpose of clarification, the decision of the court and its implication (if any) on the conduct of marriages at the Ikoyi Registry in Lagos. THE DECISION OF THE COURT In Suit No FHC/L/CS/1760/16, the Plaintiff’s by an amended originating summons dated and filed on the 28th of September 2017, sought the following reliefs, amongst others:

  • A Declaration that by virtue of Section 1(5) and Paragraph 1 (i) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the registration of marriages are within the exclusive authorities of Registrar within Local Government.
  • A Declaration that contracting and registration of marriage by Federal Ministry of Interior under Federal Marriage Registry Ikoyi, Lagos, Owerri, Imo State, Port Harcourt Government Council Rivers State and others states outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly is unconstitutional, null and void.
  • A Declaration that the 1st Respondent does not have power to contract, celebrate and issue marriage certificate in the Applicants’ Local Government.
The 2nd Defendant in response filed a preliminary objection vide a motion on notice dated and filed the 22nd of May 2017, praying the court to dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.  The crux of the objection was that there was already a decision of the Federal High Court in FHC/L/870/2002-HAASTRUP & ANOR v. ETI OSA LOCAL GOVT. & 2 Ors. which decided on the same issues raised by the Plaintiff’s and the decision was not pending or decided on appeal. The 2nd Defendant therefore argued that the Plaintiff’s re-litigation of the same issues before the Court was nothing but an abuse of court process since the 2nd Plaintiff and the Defendants in this suit where parties in the Haastrup suit and the reliefs sought in the suit were exhaustively resolved in the Haastrup suit. Consequently, the 2nd Defendant prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the Plaintiffs. The Court having considered all arguments submitted on the preliminary objection held: “…there is a decision of the Federal High Court sequel to an Originating Summons taken out in Suit No. FHC/L/870/2002 (i.e. the Haastrup Case). There is no evidence before this Court that the decision in FHC/L/870/2002 has been nullified on appeal or that any appeal is pending against the decision. As the law stands, that decision is binding and subsisting…A judgment of a court of law is presumed valid and parties are to obey it…while a non-party to an earlier case may not be bound by the order therein, he is bound by the principles enunciated in that case.” The court however further stated that such judgements to be binding must be tied to the pronouncement on the issue as joined or set out or reframed for determination in the suit. Having set-out the basis for its determination of the issues before it, the court in considering earlier the holding of the Federal high Court in Haastrup’s case (for the purpose only of considering if it had determined the same issues being presented before the court) stated: “I see at page 22 of the decision in FHC/L/870/2002, that the court resolved this issue in the following terms: In conclusion therefore, lawful bodies or authorities which can celebrate or contract marriages for intending persons who are desirous of getting married as husbands and wives are:
  1. Registrars in places designated as an office
  2. Recognized ministers of religion in a licensed pace of worship.
  3. Marriages contracted under the licence granted by the Director-General, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Director-General of a State Government in charge of marriages, any officer in the aforestated ministries and of course, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
As regards registration of marriages only, this is within the exclusive authority of the registrar within the marriage district (Local Government) in accordance with the provisions of section 30(1) of the Marriage Act, Section 7(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999; and paragraph 1(i) of the Fourth Schedule of the same Constitution.” His Lordship concluded: “It is an open secret that the former Ministry of Internal Affairs is same as the Ministry of the Interior headed by the Respondent in this action. I therefore take judicial notice of that fact…I am satisfied that the pronouncement now sought of this Court in the instant action had already been very clearly or distinctly pronounced upon by the Court in FHC/L/ 870/2002…Looking at the claim of the Plaintiffs, this Court cannot be invited all over to make another pronouncement on the same point. “The real danger is the prospect of this Court giving a dissimilar interpretation on the relevant and extant laws, which would only result in two conflicting decisions coming from the same Court. Yet by section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, cap F 12, Laws of the Federation of the Federation, 2004 there is only one Federal High Court… It is of course true that two matters can validly arise and be maintained contemporaneously in so far as the causes of action are different…Unfortunately, the substance of the claim of the Plaintiffs before me is a re-submission of the very issue already settled in FHC/L/870/2002 to this Court (the Federal High Court) for pronouncement. I decline to follow such hideous trajectory, which could only lead to perdition, in order to obviate any prospect for judicial anarchy.” The Learned Judge therefore held that the action as instituted by the Plaintiffs in FHC/L/CS/1760/16 -EGOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDO STATE & ORS V. HON MINISTER OF INTERIOR & ORS is an abuse of court process but struck out the suit rather than dismissing same to “avoid unnecessary arguments that the Plaintiffs’ complaints have been determined on the merits, should the proper action be instituted as corollary to the decision in FHC/L/870/2002 against which there is no appeal”. COMMENTARY ON THE DECISION It remains unclear how, by any stretch of interpretation, the proponents of the arguments that the above decision has determined the powers of the Ikoyi Marriage registry to conduct marriages. The arguments are a clear misinterpretation of the decision of his Lordship. It is necessary to note that his Lordship in his judgement noted that the abuse of process which led the court to decline jurisdiction was an impediment to the determination of the primary claims but not necessarily the incidental claims. This is so because the primary claims were claims for declaration while the incidental claims where for injunctive reliefs. As his Lordship put it: “It would be different if the Plaintiff’s action and claim(s) merely anchored in the decision in FHC/L/870/2002 with corollary order(s) for injunction. This is not what I find in the primary claim(s) of the Plaintiffs which by the way, determine my jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of this Court in this matter is not determined by the ancillary injunctive orders sought, which constitute the incidental claim(s) in the action. The primary or main claim(s) but not the incidental or ancillary claim(s) determine jurisdiction.” The Plaintiff’s in this case called upon the court to determine the originating summons and it is worthy of note that in originating summons only interpretation of law or document is sought.  Therefore, once a court of coordinate jurisdiction decides upon an originating summons, the best option is to appeal against it. For there can be no subsequent facts to warrant a different determination. Hence, though his Lordship agreed that the issue raised by the Plaintiff was worthy of possible consideration on appeal, he declined from taking appellate position on a decision of another Federal High Court.  According to his Lordship: “It seems to me that the Plaintiffs have a palpable complaint and ubi jus ibi remedium. They have however approached the court wrongly. I adjudge this action, as constituted, as an abuse of court process and I so hold.” In an originating summons parties come to the courts to say, “My Lord, what is the implication of this law or document?”. The Federal High Court decided the implication in the Haastrup case and the plaintiffs came before another Federal High Court to say, “My Lord what is the implication of this law or document”. His Lordship by this case is saying therefore “we (the Federal High Court) have given our decision on what this law is. If you want another opinion go to the appellate court, stop going around all the Federal High courts with the hope that one of us will give a different view. The Federal High Court is one”. In the final analysis, the decision in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1760/16-EGOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDO STATE & ORS V. HON MINISTER OF INTERIOR is not authority for the issue of determination of the powers, or lack thereof, of the Ikoyi marriage registry or any federal government registry or agency to conduct marriages. The case stands only as authority on the point that once a court has given its decision on any issue raised for determination by originating summons, the same issue should not be taken to the same court for re-determination, an aggrieved party should file an appeal. Counsel should not ask the court to interpreted what it has already interpreted. This was what the court decided upon. IN CONCLUSION The approach of the court is commendable as it preserves judicial sanity in adjudicatory process. The situation has become too common that parties shop for a court of another state to give interpretation of a law which it has already interpreted, with the aim that the court gives a decision different from that of the same court another judicial division. This practice has been infamously conducted with decisions of the Federal High Court, “yet by section 19 of the Federal High Court Act, there is only one Federal High Court”. It is hoped that the approach of the Learned Judge would be adopted in future to maintain judicial consistency in federal high court decisions. Comment your reserve. Oliver Omoredia , OBIAGWU & OBIAGWU LLP 08100193573 Oliveromoredia@yahoo.com]]>

"Exciting news! TheNigeriaLawyer is now on WhatsApp Channels 🚀 Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest legal insights!" Click here! ....................................................................................................................... Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material and other digital content on this website, in whole or in part, without express and written permission from TheNigeriaLawyer, is strictly prohibited _________________________________________________________________ [Register Now] ILA Nigeria Branch Marks 10 Years With Infrastructure Financing As Theme For 7th Annual Conference The International Law Association - Nigeria Branch 7th annual conference on public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure financing, April 4-5 in Abuja. Details: https://ilanigeria.org.ng/conference _________________________________________________________________

NIALS' Compendia Series: Your One-Stop Solution For Navigating Nigerian Laws (2004-2023)

Email: info@nials.edu.ng, tugomak@yahoo.co.uk, Contact: For Inquiry and information, kindly contact, NIALS Director of Marketing: +2348074128732, +2348100363602.