Elizabeth Mabamije V Hans Wolfgang Otto (2016)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin City Division delivered on the 10th day of June, 2004. Briefly, the facts are these According to the Plaintiff/Appellant, she claims the Respondent promised to marry her, but breached his promise by refusing to marry her. As a result of the alleged breach, the Appellant as plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming:

“1. The sum N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira) being damages, suffered by the Plaintiff for breach of promise to marry was made to her by the defendant in December, 1986 (and renewed every year up to June, 1999 and April (2000) at various places in Warri.

2. An Order compelling the defendant to perfect/complete all the marriage arrangements concerning the Plaintiff which the defendant earlier commenced with plaintiff parents/relations.”

After pleadings were filed and exchanged, the defendant filed a motion on Notice on the 7th of February, 2001. The motion was brought under Order 24 Rules 2 and 3 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Bendel State and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The defendant asked

1for the following:

“(a) An Order setting down for hearing the points of law raised in paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence.

(b) An Order dismissing the suit in its entirety and

(c) For such further order or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.”

The motion was supported by a 16 paragraph affidavit, deposed to by Seliowei Willy Bandi, a Solicitor to the defendant. Annexed to the affidavit are documents marked exhibit A, B, C.

The grounds for the application were:

(a) The suit is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.

(b) Plaintiff is estopped from further litigating on the subject matter of this suit having waived her purported right to the claim in a previous suit against the defendant.

(c) The suit is embarrassing, scandalous, and vexatious. The alleged and/or purported marriage and/or promise to marry are contrary to public policy and therefore void having regard to the fact that the defendant is and was at all material times validly and legally married under the English Marriage Act of 1949.

The Plaintiff did not file a counter affidavit. On the 16th day of May, 2001, the learned trial judge heard