BY KELVIN OSEMENE
DEFINITELY, marriage is not a union from the blues. Rather, it has a ‘gestation’ period, a kind of experimental duration before blossoming into wedlock.
More often, it starts from casual acquaintance followed by a promise to marry. Like all contracts, a promise to marry binds the parties and they must show commitments to the contract.
Such promise may be written, oral or deduced from the conduct of the parties.
For instance, in Abamba v Bello, the second plaintiff, Joyce Abamba, a secondary school student left her hostel and started living with the defendant amid a romantic relationship, leading to a pregnancy and an attempt by the defendant to abandon the young lady failed, as court found the defendant guilty of promise to marry and awarded damages against him for his act even though no written document was relied upon to prove the promise.
This is a clear indication that promise for marriage need not be in writing but could be gleaned from the conduct and commitments of the parties to such promise.
According to the court,”A marriage is frequently, although by no means preceded by a contract to marry or ‘engagement”. As a general rule, such contracts are governed by the same rules of law as other contracts ….But so long as a promise to marry is supported by some kind of valuable consideration, it will be enforceable even though the promisee did not in turn make an express promise to marry the promisor”
See also Chinye A.m. Ezeanah V. Alhaji Mahmoud Attah.
Indeed, a promise to marry someone remains a serious business/agreement that is binding on the parties and any breach of such agreement, whether under customary, statutory or Islamic law attracts damages. This has been adumbrated in a plethora of cases including Obasawa v Ibodiaran.
In Atta v Ezeanah (supra) the immutable Nikki Tobi JSC (As he then was) had this to say “a promise to marry is a bilateral affair between a man and a woman, both parties must be ad idem in respect of any collateral transactions to the intended marriage and a breach of that promise is enforceable against the person in default”
It is therefore crystal clear that refusal to marry someone after promising marriage and showing commitment to the promise amounts to breach of contract and the party denied of the marriage has a right to approach a court of competent jurisdiction to seek remedy.
It must be emphasized here that like other contracts, capacity to engage in promise to marry is a very important factor as a minor or mentally deranged persons cannot enter into or enforce a promise to marry.
Parties to a promise to marry should have the capacity to make consent to such promise otherwise it is not valid or supportable by law.
A child for instance cannot be betrothed to a man as section 22 of the child’s Right Act and the corresponding provisions of the various states domestication of same prohibit such and makes same a punishable offence.
If however such promise is subject to a specific condition or happening of an event which our laws don’t frown at, such event or condition remains a factor to be considered by the court in trying to unravel whether there is a valid promise to marry and subsequent breach thereof.
Thus in Aiyede v Williams, where the agreement to get married by the parties subject to the consent of the defendant’s father failed because the father of the defendant withheld consent, the court held that since the promise was subject to the consent which was sought but not granted, plaintiff’s suit for breach of promise to marry must fail as there was no breach of any marriage.
However, in Ugboma v Morah, the defendants attempted to renege from promise to marry on the ground that the plaintiff had no capacity to enter into promise of marriage having not obtained the consent of the plaintiff’s parents as their custom demands, was rejected by the court as the parties being adults have capacity to enter the contract not withstanding absence of the plaintiffs parents’ consent.
Again, only a person of single marital status can enter into a promise to marry under the Marriage Act as it is a punishable offence for any person in a subsisting marriage to knowingly enter into another marriage under the Act.
To succeed in a suit seeking remedy for breach of promise to marry, an aggrieved party must be able to convince the court that there was actually a promise to marry and that the defaulting party has neglected, failed or refused to honour the agreement.
Such proof, thus in the case of Uso v Iketubosin, the violation by the defendant of a vow to marry the plaintiff and subsequent marriage to another woman was accepted by court as satisfactory proof of breach of marriage.
A plaintiff seeking remedy for breach of promise of marriage should therefore go beyond boyfriend and girlfriend amorous relationship but there should be evidence to support the promise,
Indeed, Section 197 of the Evidence Act 2011 clearly provides “a plaintiff in any action for breach of promise of marriage is not entitled to succeed unless his testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise and the fact that the defendant did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to marry the plaintiff is not such corroboration.”
Promise to marry remains an enforceable contract between the parties and a breach of this attracts penalties under our laws.
Any aggrieved party should not hesitate to consult a legal practitioner for the relevant remedies guaranteed by our laws as there is always a remedy whenever there is a wrong.
Avoid suffering in silence but take the necessary legal step to get the available remedy. Wallowing in ignorance is no excuse.
Remain on the side of the law and not risk violating the law and the ugly consequences.
