Grade A Customary Court, Court 2, sitting at Mapo in Ibadan, Oyo State, has delivered judgment in a divorce case filed by a man identified as Hakeem against his wife, Idayat, over allegations of aggression and disrespect toward his relatives, friends, and neighbours.
Hakeem told the court that his wife’s hostile behaviour had driven away his family members and friends, leaving him isolated. He described their home as a constant battleground due to her conduct.
According to him, Idayat repeatedly denied his first wife and her children access to his apartment and would physically confront them whenever they tried to enter. He said her actions frequently sparked conflicts between them.
Hakeem further alleged that his wife constantly threatened and attacked him, making life unbearable. He claimed she often chased him with a cutlass during disputes and openly vowed to k!ll him.
The plaintiff explained that he eventually left the house after realising his life was in danger, but said Idayat continued to harass and fight him whenever they crossed paths.
In addition to seeking the dissolution of the marriage, Hakeem asked the court to issue a restraining order preventing his wife from threatening or interfering in his private life, and also requested custody of their children.
While giving evidence, Hakeem said he met Idayat about 20 years ago and they held an introduction ceremony after a brief courtship, though he did not pay her bride price. He told the court that marrying her remained his biggest regret, adding that her true nature only became evident after they began living together.
He stated that Idayat made his life miserable by being unfriendly and unkind to his relatives, friends, and neighbours. He said she constantly blocked his first wife and children from seeing him and turned every disagreement into a fight.
Hakeem added that his wife showed him no respect, regularly argued with him, and frequently assaulted him. He reiterated that she repeatedly threatened his life, chased him with a cutlass, and that he fled their home out of fear she might carry out her threats.
“My wife still refused to let me have rest of mind. She would accost me anytime our paths crossed and fight me. My lord, I came to court because my wife has made my life miserable enough. I plead that the court end our relationship and restrain her from threatening and interfering with my private life.
“I further entreat the court for our children’s custody. She has never been a good example to them.”
However, Idayat denied all the allegations brought against her.
She also refused that their marriage be dissolved, giving the welfare of their children as an excuse.
According to her, she was the one solely responsible for their children’s welfare.
She pleaded that the court mandate her husband to pay the amount of N70,000 per month for the feeding of their four children and make him also responsible for their education and health care.
“It is true that my husband and I held no wedding ceremony, and he did not pay my bride price. My lord, I do not want to divorce, nor do I want my husband to have custody of our four children because they are still young,” she said.
“Moreover, I have been responsible for their feeding and education. He pays them little or no attention. If the court rules in my husband’s favour, then I entreat the court to mandate him to pay N70,000 monthly for the feeding of the four and also be responsible for their education and health care.”
The court president, Mrs O.E. Owoseni, giving her judgement, said that there was no marriage to be dissolved because no customary marriage was held between the two.
She further stated that the evidence of threat was not disputed or challenged by the defendant, which, according to her, was tantamount to admission of all the claims.
Owoseni gave an order restraining the defendant from threatening and interfering with the plaintiff’s private life premised on the defendant’s admission to the threat of the plaintiff’s life and incessant fights even after the plaintiff had left home.
She granted the defendant custody of their children and the plaintiff reasonable access to them.
The plaintiff was ordered to be responsible for their upkeep, giving adequate attention to their feeding, education, and health care.
