CaseLaw
Olowoofoyeku V. Olowoofoyeku (2011) CLR 7(k) (CA)
Judgement delivered on July 12th, 2010
Brief
Facts
The appellant who was the petitioner/cross-respondent at the trial court was married to the respondent/cross-petitioner. They had for some time been having problems in their marriage before they eventually filed petitions for divorce. It was alleged that the appellant picked quarrel over minor issues, the last one, being the beating up of their son over the harmless issue of the respondent directing their said son to close the windows of the appellant's room when it was raining. It was further alleged that in further reaction to the respondent directing their son to close the appellant's room windows, the appellant engaged the respondent in a fight and inflicted a deep cut on his forehead by hitting him with a torchlight. Thereafter, the appellant left the matrimonial home, leaving two children of their marriage and went ahead to file divorce petition. The respondent cross-petitioned.
The appellant later withdrew her petition but the respondent proceeded with his cross-petition. The said cross-petition was heard and judgment given.
A decree Nisi was granted and custody of the two children of the marriage aged 6 and 4 years respectively was given to the respondent/cross-petitioner while access to the children was denied to the appellant/cross-respondent. This was inspite of the fact that, the respondent, in his pleading (which was uncontradicted) conceded that access be given to the appellant/cross-respondent in paragraph 12(0) of his reply/cross-petition.
The appellant was not satisfied with the part of the judgment denying her access to the children, so she appealed to the Court of Appeal contending inter alia that the trial court ought to have allowed her access to the children. The respondent argued that the appellant never asked for access to the children and the court does not grant a relief that was not requested by any party. On the issue that the respondent in his pleadings, conceded access to the appellant, the respondent contended that there is no evidence in support of the averment and that the said averment could not constitute an evidence.
Issues
Whether the trial court was right in denying the appellant access to...