COURT GIVES JUDGEMENT AFTER THE LADY REFUSES TO MARRY THE MAN WHO SENT HER TO SCHOOL

COURT GIVES JUDGEMENT AFTER THE LADY REFUSES TO MARRY THE MAN WHO SENT HER TO SCHOOL

By Barr. Obasi Nzubechi

Barr. Ikpeama: Are you saying you sponsored her education, and she is now refusing to marry you?

Nwoke: Yes, sir.

Barr. Ikpeama: Did she give any reason for her decision?

Nwoke: No clear reason. She has been avoiding me, and after her graduation, when I approached her about marriage, she said she was not ready.

Barr. Ikpeama: Before you sponsored her education, what was the arrangement between you and her family?

Nwoke: When I met her, she had just completed secondary school. I informed her parents of my intention to marry her, but they insisted she must first go to university. They told me I could only marry her if I agreed to sponsor her education, which they said would last about four years. I agreed.

Barr. Ikpeama: What was the response of her parents when you complained about the current situation?

Nwoke: They said their daughter is an adùlt and they cannot compel her to marry me. They advised me to move on and trust that I will find a wife elsewhere.

Barr. Ikpeama (to the lady): Why have you decided not to marry the Plaintiff after all this time?

Nwanyi: I no longer have feelings for him.

Barr. Ikpeama: How do you intend to refund the money he spent on your education?

Nwanyi: I have no plans to refund him. He acted on his own free will. Besides, how does he intend to compensate me for the sè× we had? I did not force him to spend or send me to school, my parents only suggested that.

JUDGE: Here is my judgment:

JUDGMENT

This Court has carefully considered the evidence before it, including the oral testimonies of the parties and the surrounding circumstances of this case.

The Plaintiff’s claim is founded on a breach of promise to marry, arising from an arrangement wherein he sponsored the Defendant’s education based on a mutual understanding, supported by her family, that marriage would follow upon completion of her studies.

From the evidence, it is not in dispùte that:
The Plaintiff undertook the financial responsibility of training the Defendant through school.

This was done upon a clear representation and expectation of marriage.

The Defendant, upon graduation, declined the marriage without any justifiable or cogent reason.

While this Court recognizes that marriage is a voluntary union and no person can be compelled to marry against their will, the law equally protects parties from injùry arising from reliance on a clear and serious promise. Where one party acts to his detriment based on such a promise, and the other party unjustifiably rescinds from it, liability may arise.

The Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff acted voluntarily does not absolve her of responsibility, particularly in view of the established understanding that influenced the Plaintiff’s actions. Her refusal, in the circumstances of this çase, amounts to a breach that occasioned financial and emotional loss to the Plaintiff.

On the issue of intimacy raised by the Defendant, this Court holds that such a claim is irrelevant to the contractual and equitable issues before the Court, as it was consensual and does not constitute a legal counterclaim.
In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is found liable for breach of promise to marry and is accordingly ordered to pay the sum of: ₦15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Naira) as damages to the Plaintiff for the losses sùffered.

This shall be the judgment of this Honourable Court.

All in court: As the court pleases.