site logo

IKIKE INIONBONG JOHNSON V. INIONBONG SUNDAY JOHNSON (2023)

Case Digest

Court of Appeal (Calabar Division)

Coram

  • Raphael Chikwe Agbo JCA
  • Hamma Akawu Barka JCA
  • Balkisu Bello Aliyu JCA

Parties:

Appellant:

  • Mr. Inionbong Sunday Johnson

Respondent:

  • Mrs. Ikike Inionbong Johnson
Suit number: CA/C/245/2022

Background

This case concerns the custody of two children following the dissolution of marriage between Mr. Inionbong Sunday Johnson (the Appellant) and Mrs. Ikike Inionbong Johnson (the Respondent). The marriage was conducted under the Marriage Act, and the Respondent initiated proceedings in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State for divorce. The trial court granted the divorce and awarded custody of the children to the Respondent, allowing the Appellant reasonable access. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed on grounds of jurisdiction and the trial court’s custody decisions.

Issues

The appeal raised several critical issues:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal concerning the custody of the children.
  2. Whether the trial judge was correct in granting custody to the Respondent while acknowledging that there were concurrent proceedings regarding custody in another court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal, presided by Justice Barka, succinctly affirmed that:

  1. If an appellant fails to obtain leave to appeal where it is required, the appeal is considered incompetent and will be struck out.
  2. The matter of custody, being interlocutory, requires such leave according to statutory provisions.

Court Findings

The court found:

  1. The Appellant's appeal was incompetent due to the lack of obtained leave to appeal, thereby dissolving the case on procedural grounds.
  2. The issue of custody was deemed interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal as it would affect only the proceedings, not resolve them definitively.
  3. The trial court had the jurisdiction to make custodial orders even though similar matters were pending in another court, given the emphasis on the children's best interests.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal ultimately struck out the appeal due to incompetency stemming from the failure to seek necessary leave, thereby upholding the lower court’s judgment regarding custody arrangements and access rights.

Significance

This case underscores the necessity for litigants in custody disputes to adhere to procedural requirements when appealing decisions, particularly the requisite of obtaining leave for appeals relating to interlocutory orders in custody cases. The court emphasized that the best interest of the child remains paramount in custody considerations regardless of concurrent proceedings.