The institution of marriage stands as one of the fundamental pillars that shapes a nation. Since every country is ultimately built upon families, the health of those families directly influences the health of the nation itself. A strong, stable family fosters a thriving society, while a broken or unhealthy family structure can weaken it. Among the most significant threats to family wellbeing is divorce. Divorce undermines the foundation of a healthy family and should never be taken lightly, as its consequences often fall most heavily on the children, who become the primary victims of fractured homes.
One of the reasons the recent Supreme Court decision in Ugbah v. Ugbah (supra) has been hailed by family lawyers as a landmark ruling is its perceived potential to reshape family law jurisprudence. It has been welcomed as a progressive step that enriches the ongoing discourse around the institution of the family. Yet, beneath this seemingly positive development lies a troubling dimension that many practitioners appear to have overlooked, glossing over critical issues in their enthusiasm for the judgment.
This article is not intended to dampen the celebration but rather to highlight systemic flaws within our judiciary and to suggest ways they might be corrected. A judgment may be sound in principle and widely applauded, but what value does it truly hold if those meant to benefit from it are ultimately unable to do so?
Facts of the case;
The Nigeria Supreme Court in Ugbah v. Ugbah (2025) ruled that a wife and children can independently claim maintenance, welfare, and educational support during the subsistence of a marriage, without first filing for divorce. The judgment emphasized that fathers remain legally bound to support their families regardless of marital status, and courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- Case Background
- Mrs. Veronica Ugbah sued her husband, Mr. Patrick Ugbah, seeking financial support for herself, their children’s education, and alternative accommodation.
- Mr. Ugbah argued that such claims could only be made under the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) through divorce or separation petitions, not by writ of summons.
- Lower Court Decisions
- High Court: Dismissed the husband’s objection, affirming the wife’s claim was competent.
- Court of Appeal: Reversed the High Court, insisting that only a matrimonial petition could bring such claims.
- Supreme Court Ruling (July 4, 2025):
- Allowed the appeal and restored the High Court’s ruling.
- Held that a wife does not need to file for divorce before seeking maintenance.
- Clarified that children’s rights to welfare and education are independent and enforceable.
- Stressed that courts must prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities
As reflected in the judgment, the Court deserves commendation for breaking away from the entrenched rigidity often associated with the Matrimonial Causes Act. Traditionally, the Act has been narrowly construed to mean that any claim arising from marriage must be pursued strictly under its provisions, and not via the Writ of Summons as we have in this case. The prevailing position of the law had long been that maintenance could only be sought as an ancillary relief to divorce or judicial separation. In practice, this meant that a woman who wished to compel her husband to provide maintenance for herself and the children was first required to initiate proceedings for dissolution of the marriage. An independent action for maintenance was considered legally untenable. What happens where the wife is not interested in dissolving her marriage but wishes to compel her husband to maintain herself and the children of the marriage?
The apex court has comprehensively addressed the questions at hand, leaving no room for ambiguity. This clarity is why the judgment is being widely hailed as a pacesetter. In the past, cases such as Okpagu v. Okpagu (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 368) page 335; Nakanda v. Nakanda (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) page 258; Erhahon v. Erhahon (2014) LPELR-23094 (CA) etc.,posed significant hurdles to advancing this issue. However, with this recent decision, all uncertainties have now been firmly laid to rest.
With this socalled epochmaking decision, certain glaring imperfections and maladministration were laid bare in the judgment for all to see. To grasp the full effect of the issues raised, it is necessary to trace the trajectory of the case from the lowest court through the High Court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
- The matter was first filed at the lower court on 9 June 2006, with judgment delivered in December of that year.
- The Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 14 July 2008.
- Finally, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 4 July 2025.
In total, the case endured nearly two decades of judicial hurdles. According to court records, the children of the marriage were only five and four years old when the action was filed at the Lagos High Court. Yet, by the time the Supreme Court pronounced its final judgment, those same children were 25 and 24 years old. What an irony of circumstance: children who entered the litigation as toddlers had already grown into fullfledged adults by the time the highest court in the land concluded the matter.
The true tragedy of this case was not merely the years Mrs. Ugbah and her children spent fighting for their rights. Far more jarring was the travesty of justice revealed in the outcome: after nearly two decades, it was not even the substantive judgment that the court delivered. Instead, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement came only on the interlocutory ruling, the very issue that had been the subject of appeal. Thus, two decades of litigation culminated not in a resolution of the core dispute, but in a decision on a procedural matter.
Although the Supreme Court, under its rules, possesses the jurisdiction to hear a matter on its merits, it was unable to do so in this instance because the case had never been heard on its merits before Mr. Ugbah launched the appeal. The consequence was that, after two decades of litigation, the matter was remitted back to the lower court for a proper hearing on the merits. The irony is stark: it remains uncertain whether Mrs. Ugbah and her children will still have the courage or stamina to embark on the same arduous journey again, a process that could well consume another twenty years.
Unfortunately, the successful party in this instance gained nothing after twenty years of litigation. The rules of court allowed the opposing party to exploit the system by filing a baseless appeal before the merits of the case had even been determined. Mrs. Ugbah’s ordeal is not unique, there are countless others like her who have endured endless interlocutory appeals from defendants intent on frustrating proceedings and wasting judicial time with frivolous challenges. Even if such appeals were meritorious, why should the rules of court not be amended to prevent incessant appeals and compel parties to conclude their cases on the merits before approaching the appellate courts?
It is high time the rules of court were amended to discourage parties from filing appeals in matters that have not yet been heard on their merits. The rules must be structured to assist judges in the effective discharge of their duties, given that courts are bound by them. While it is encouraging to hear the judiciary reaffirm the ageold principle of zero tolerance for technicalities, our procedural rules must likewise be crafted in a way that prevents technicalities from being weaponized to obstruct justice.
Oluwole Olukoya, MCArb.
(Notary Public)
Partner, Allan & Ogunkeye legal Practitioners.
