THE CASE FOR JOINT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN MARRIAGE: Acknowledging the Unseen Contributions of Wives in Nigeria. Volume I

BY: J.N FRANCIS ESQ

Marriage in Nigeria, often perceived as a sacred contract, legally binds two individuals. Yet, beneath this bond lies a pervasive, and often unchallenged, assumption: that of an inherent inequality, positioning the woman as the economically disadvantaged party. While our legal framework strives for fairness, the practical application of property rights within marriage frequently falls short, particularly for wives whose immense contributions are not always monetary.
Nigerian law, through instruments like the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA), broadly acknowledges a wife's right to joint property ownership. Section 72 of the MCA empowers the courts to determine a fair and equitable settlement of property upon dissolution of marriage. However, the prevailing interpretation, rooted in a more traditional understanding, often places a harsh condition: the expectation of direct financial contribution from the wife. This narrow view, exemplified by cases like Essien v. Essien and Amadi v. Nwosu, demands stringent proof of monetary input, even down to receipts, creating an insurmountable hurdle for many women.

This is where the law, in its current dormant application, fails to reflect the lived realities of countless Nigerian marriages.
It is my fervent belief that this provision of the MCA must be amended and, more importantly, reinvigorated in its judicial interpretation. Courts, when exercising their discretion under Section 72, must adopt an inherently equity-based approach to property settlement. This isn't merely a legalistic adjustment; it's a call for justice, recognizing the multifaceted ways wives contribute to the marital estate, often far beyond a paycheque.

■ Beyond the Bank Account: The Invaluable Labour of Love.

Customary and Islamic laws, unfortunately, present an even more challenging landscape. While customary law is a recognized source of law in Nigeria, it must always be tested against the repugnancy test – ensuring it aligns with natural justice, equity, and good conscience. Any custom that denies a woman joint property ownership simply because she didn't earn an income is fundamentally discriminatory and repugnant to these core principles. The deeply entrenched, and often patriarchal, views in some regions, particularly within certain Igbo communities, where wives are tragically viewed as inheritable "objects," underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift. This traditional perspective inflicts peculiar and devastating hardship on women post-divorce.
However, a glimmer of hope, and indeed a powerful argument for change, lies in international instruments.

Article 7 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, commonly known as the Maputo Protocol, explicitly champions the right of a "stay-at-home wife" to have legal joint ownership of her husband's property, even without direct financial support. While Nigeria is a signatory to this vital protocol, its persuasive effect in our courts is currently limited by the lack of full domestication into our domestic laws. This is a critical juncture where the legislature must act. Fully domesticating Article 7 is not merely a bureaucratic step; it is an imperative for justice, ensuring that this crucial principle has direct and binding legal effect in our courts, fundamentally transforming the landscape of women's property rights.

■ The Courts' Role in Breathing Life into Dormant Principles.

Encouragingly, there are instances where Nigerian courts have, with foresight and empathy, exercised their discretion to grant joint ownership to women even without direct financial contributions. These landmark judgments serve as beacons, demonstrating how an equity-based approach can, and should, be applied:
1. Oghoyone v. Oghoyone: This case powerfully affirmed that both financial contributions and the invaluable domestic support provided by a wife during marriage must be recognized in property distribution after divorce. It underscores that partnership extends beyond the ledger.
2. Okere v. Akaluka: The court here rightly concluded that the indirect contributions of wives, through their performance of marital and domestic functions, enabled their husbands to acquire matrimonial property, thereby granting them a beneficial entitlement. This is a clear recognition of the enabling environment a wife creates.

These cases are not anomalies; they are precedents that must be championed and consistently applied. They provide the "life" we seek to infuse into the dormant principles of equitable property distribution.
Marriage: A Partnership, Not a Transaction
In many Nigerian households, particularly in traditional settings in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, the man often shoulders the role of primary or sole breadwinner. Concurrently, the woman takes on the immense, often unseen, responsibilities of raising children, managing the household, and providing unwavering emotional support. This division of labour, while common, creates profound challenges when it comes to property ownership.
The central question remains: Should a spouse, particularly a wife, be entitled to joint ownership of property purchased solely with the husband's income?

My answer, unequivocally, is YES. From the standpoint of fairness, equality, and the recognition of invaluable non-monetary contributions, wives must enjoy ownership of marital property, irrespective of who directly brought in the money. Marriage, in its truest essence, is a partnership, not a mere transaction. It is a profound legal and emotional collaboration, far removed from a business deal. While the husband may be earning a salary, the wife is invariably creating the very conditions that make that earning possible: meticulously caring for the children, maintaining a functional home, and providing the crucial emotional and mental support that allows the husband to focus on his professional pursuits. The value of full-time caregiving, meticulous household management, invaluable emotional labour, and providing mental solutions that enable a husband to thrive professionally cannot be overstated. These non-financial contributions are not just valuable; they are invaluable.

■ Safeguarding Futures: The Imperative of Joint Ownership.

Where property is solely in the husband's name, the implications for the wife in the event of death, divorce, or separation are dire. She is often left without any asset to fall back on, utterly stripped of security. Joint ownership provides a vital legal claim and protection, particularly for women who have stepped away from their careers or struggled to re-establish themselves financially after dedicating years to family welfare. This is even more critical in heartbreaking scenarios where a wife was specifically asked by her husband to forgo her career and become an "idle housewife." To deny such a woman joint property ownership would be a profound injustice, rendering her economically vulnerable after years of selfless dedication to the family. It's not about equal shares, but about an equitable share – quantifying what is reasonable to award a wife for her profound non-financial contributions.

The courts possess the tools to quantify these contributions, including:
1. Child care and parenting: The immense labour, time, and emotional investment in raising children.
2. Homemaking duties: The tireless effort in managing and maintaining the domestic environment.
3. Support to the husband's career or education: Sacrifices like relocating for his job, foregoing personal career opportunities, or providing a stable home life that facilitates his professional growth.
4. Caring for sick or elderly family members: The often-unseen burden of caregiving for extended family.
5. Emotional support and companionship: The bedrock of a healthy marriage that fuels resilience and ambition.
6. Number of years spent in marriage: A tangible measure of the duration of shared life and collective effort.

■ Remedies for the Stay-At-Home Wife: Ensuring Justice.

For the "stay-at-home wife," available legal remedies can and should be robustly applied:
1. Unjust Enrichment: Where a husband has unjustly benefited from his wife's unpaid labour, sacrifices, or support (e.g., building a business while she raised the children), she should be able to claim unjust enrichment and seek appropriate compensation.
2. Equitable Distribution: Courts must actively employ the principle of equitable distribution to divide marital property fairly, taking full account of non-financial contributions like child-rearing, homemaking, and invaluable support to the husband's career.

This is not about "rewarding" one party over another; it is fundamentally about fairness. No wife should walk away from a marriage without an asset to fall back on simply because her contributions were not financial. Family care is a monumental contribution, demanding immense courage, dedication, and sacrifice.
Joint ownership recognizes that marriage is, and must be, a team effort, not a reward system solely tied to income generation. A just society and a truly healthy marriage cannot afford to ignore the immeasurable value of the unpaid labour and sacrifices that sustain it. This isn't merely about legal statutes; it is about embedding respect, dignity, and the profound essence of a shared life into the very fabric of our laws and societal understanding. It's time to bring these dormant principles to vibrant life in Nigerian family law.