THE CASE FOR JOINT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN MARRIAGE-EVEN WITHOUT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE WIFE. Volume II

BY: J.N FRANCIS ESQ

In Nigeria, marriage is seen as a contract between two persons who has consented to be legally bonded together. There is a general conation that this union is usually between two unequal parties, having the woman as the weaker party and is usually at an economically disadvantaged side of the contract.
The Nigeria law embraces the right of a wife to jointly own a property with the husband, and where the husband tries to breach this right, the wife can seek redress in court. Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act establishes the principle that a wife can jointly own a property with the husband and where the need arises, in settlement of the property, the court should consider what is fair and equitable in terms of property settlement.

Although the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 establishes the right of a woman to own property jointly with her husband, under the harsh condition that she might have contributed financially to support the husband. It is my humble opinion that while the provision should be amended to protect the rights of women who have not contributed financially but have supported in so much ways to enable the husband acquire so much, the court while exercising its discretion, settlement of property in regards to section 72 of the MCA, should consider an equity-based approach to property settlement so as to be fair and just. Also some cases that has occasioned hardship on women who has not contributed direct financial support should not be reckoned on as in the cases of Essien V Essien and Amadi V Nwosu which are of the opinion that a spouse to claim beneficial interest in a matrimonial home, proof of direct financial contribution must be inferred, and he or she must give detailed particulars and support them where necessary with receipts of what he or she bought towards the building of the property.
However, this does not cover Customary marriages. Generally, Customary law is recognized as a source of law in Nigeria. However, a custom sought to be enforced must not be repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. Any custom that seeks to discriminate against a woman to own property jointly with the husband will go against the principle of equity and fairness.

Customary and Islamic law does not address the need for joint ownership. The applicable rules differ across ethnic and religious groups. Properties are usually regarded as belonging to the husband, even some regions (Igbo ethnicity) the wives are seen as objects to be inherited. This traditional view has resulted in peculiar hardship for women who find themselves at the disadvantage side after divorce.

Article 7 of the protocol of the charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Right of women in Africa demonstrates the right of a woman (wife) who is referred as ‘A STAY AT HOME WIFE’ to legally have a joint ownership in her husband’s property, though she hasn’t supported the man (husband) financially. However, this Article has a persuasive but not directly binding effect in Nigeria courts. While Nigeria is a signatory to the Maputo protocol, it has not fully domesticated the treaty into domestic laws. The writer urges the legislature to further domesticate the Maputo protocol, particularly Article 7 which ensures equal rights for men and women in separation, divorce and annulment proceedings. It is crucial for the protocol to have direct legal effect in our domestic courts.

In Nigeria, joint ownership of property between spouses, even without direct financial contribution from the spouse, is generally recognized. While direct financial contribution is a key factor, courts also acknowledge non-monetary contributions like managing the household and raising children, which enable the other spouse to focus on income generation.

In some cases, the courts have used their desecration to determine what is fair and just by giving joint ownership to women even without direct financial supports.

Oghoyone v Oghoyone – the case affirmed that financial contributions and domestic support provided by a wife during marriage must be recognized in property distributions after divorce.

Okere v Akaluka- the court was of the opinion that the indirect contribution of the wives to the matrimonial property should grant them a beneficial entitlement to the property on the basis that it was the performance of their functions as wives that enabled their husbands to get such property.
Sodipe V Sodipe- where there was no evidence of a direct financial contribution, the court however, valued the matrimonial property and awarded some amount of the money to the wife who has spent 43 years in the marriage.

Mr Aexander Ibeabuchi V Mrs Nneka Ibeabuchi- the trial court awarded the property to the wife even though there was no evidence of direct financial contribution to the property. As it was just and equitable to do so.

In many marriages, especially in traditional households or cultures, (example is the Northern and Eastern part of Nigeria) it is common for one spouse, often the man to be the primary or sole bread winner, while the other often the woman takes on non-financial responsibilities such as raising children, managing the household, and supporting the family emotionally. This situation frequently leads to complex questions when it comes to property ownership.

A common concern is whether a spouse, particularly a wife, should be entitled to joint ownership of property purchased solely with the husband’s income.
My answer as regards to fairness, equality and recognition of non-monetary contributions, is YES. Wives should enjoy ownership of property regardless of who brought in money.

Marriage in true sense is a partnership, and not a transaction. Marriage is not a business deal but a legal and emotional partnership. It is true that while the husband may be earning salary, the wife has been creating the conditions that makes that earning possible by caring for the children, maintaining the home, and providing supports that allows the husband to work.

The wife often plays critical roles in enabling the husband work and thrive professionally, considering the value of full-time care giving, household management, emotional labour and providing mental solutions to enable the husband earn. In all justification, non-financial contributions are invaluable.

Where the property is solely in the name of the husband, in the event of death, the wife has nothing to fall back to as in terms of security. The wife should be able to have a legal claim or protection in the event of death, divorce, or separation. This is especially for women who may find it more difficult to re-establish themselves financially after a long absence from the workforce.

This reflects a global shift in understanding that fairness in marriage is not about worth of a man’s wealth, but about mutual contribution.
Joint ownership in marriage irrespective of financial support from the woman sends a powerful message of respect, trust, and equality in the relationship. It acknowledges both parties’ roles in building a life together.

Often times, there have been situations where the wife may step away from her career just to give or priorities her marriage and care-giving. She gives up her dreams and life opportunities. Even in some heartbreaking situations where the wife was specifically asked by her husband to give up her dream, career and job so she can become an ‘‘idle housewife’’ by the husband. If properties are not jointly owned by both spouses, it will be a great injustice to the wife who have dedicated years to the family’s welfare and she will be rendered economically vulnerable. However, what is considered isn’t equal shares, but equitable share. The courts should be able to quantify what is reasonable to be awarded to the wife for her non- financial contribution.
The various ways I believe court can measure the non-financial contributions of the wife includes;
Child care parenting

● Home making duties
Support to the husband career or education (e.g. relocating for their job, sacrificing their career opportunities).
○ Caring for sick or elderly family members
● Emotional support and companionship
● Number of years spent in marriage
Some available remedies that can be possibly granted to stay at home wives includes;

□ Unjust Enrichment; The husband benefited unjustly from her unpaid labour, sacrifices or support (e.g. building his business while she raised the kids). She might claim unjust enrichment and seek compensations.

■ Equitable distribution; Court can divide property fairly considering non-financial contributions like rearing children, home making and supporting to the husband’s career.
This is not about rewarding one party, it is about fairness. No wife should walk away from a marriage without an asset to fall back to simply because she did not contribute financially. Family care is a whole lot of contribution in another level and it takes lots courage to face it.

Joint ownership recognizes that marriage is a team effort, and not a reward system for income generation. A just society, and a healthy marriage should not ignore the unpaid labour and sacrifices that sustains it. This isn’t about law, it’s about respect, dignity and shared life.