OJO V. OJO

• Pages: 386-391

OJO V. OJO



386

disproved. It follows that the position here was not in our view as in

R

v. Knight

(supra)

and the learned trial Judge should not have relied on the principle

enunciated there of the accused's lies affording corroboration to find

corroboration here upon which he could convict him. There being no

corroboration implicating the accused on the complainant's story on count 2, any



5

more than on count 1, the learned trial Judge was equally in error in convicting

him on that count of attempted rape as he was of rape on the first count and for

these reasons we quashed the conviction of the accused on both counts.

Appeal allowed.

10

0J0 V. 0J0

15

ADENIRAN AYODELE OJO



APPELLANT

V

MODUPE OLUFUNMILAYO OJO



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 190/1968



20

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ADEMOLA,



C.J.N.

UDO-UDOMA,



J.S.C.

FATAI-WILLIAMS, J.S.C.

12th December, 1969.



25

Matrimonial Causes - Divorce - No allegation of adultery in cross-petition after

petition was dismissed so wrong to find it - Need for corroboration of cruelty

or constructive desertion as a matter of practice though not of law or at least

need for Judge to warn himself - Custody of children should not be granted



30

by trial Judge without enquiry.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether evidence can be admitted in divorce proceedings as proof of adultery,

when adultery is not alleged.



35

2.

Whether it is necessary to obtain corroborative evidence in a case where cruelty

is alleged.

3.

Whether it is proper to make an order as to the custody of children without due

enquiry into the welfare of such children.

FACTS:



40

The Petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of adul-

tery, desertion and cruelty, he also prayed for custody of the children. His suit

was struck out due to non appearance of his lawyer. The respondent

on

the

other

hand cross petitioned for dissolution on ground of desertion and cruelty. She got

judgment and the custody of the children. The petitioner appealed.



45

HELD:

1.

The respondent made no allegation of adultery against the Petitioner. Therefore

the "love-letters" as evidence of adultery should not have been admitted. In any

case, adultery could not be inferred from the contents of any of them and the

trial Judge was therefore in error in finding the allegation of adultery proved.



50

2.

Corroboration of the respondent's evidence in support of her cross-petition

was probably not required as an absolute rule of law. As a matter of practice,

however, the Court, where the circumstances of the case make it desirable, will

require corroboration unless the absence of corroborating witnesses,