SHARING OF PROPERTY AFTER DIVORCE IN NIGERIA.
Introduction
Sharing of property after divorce in Nigeria also regarded as settlement of property is the transfer of property of a party that may be jointly owned to the other spouse. This usually comes as an ancillary relief granted during divorce proceedings. Settlement of property must be contained in a divorce petition or answer and should not be an afterthought.
The power of the court to share the properties for the benefit of either of the spouse is contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1970 which provides as follows;
“in proceedings under this decree, by order require the parties to the marriage, or either of them to make for the benefit of all or any of the parties to and the children of the marriage such settlement of property to which the parties: or either of them is entitled (whether in possession or reversion) as the court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the cases”
This legislation obviously empowers the judge who hears the divorce petition, to decide how property owned by the parties or either one of the parties is to be shared. This discretion must however be exercised in a way that is ‘just and equitable’.
Due to the plurality of Nigeria Legal System, there are different legal principles guiding settlement of properties under different forms of marriage i.e. under the customary law and under statutory provision (marriage under the Act)
Divorce, while emotionally and psychologically distressing, becomes even more complicated when it spills into the difficult terrain of property sharing. In Nigeria, the concept of marriage is not only viewed through a cultural and religious lens but also through statutory provisions that define the rights, duties, and consequences of dissolution. One of the most contentious and emotionally charged issues in divorce proceedings is the sharing of property after divorce in Nigeria. This matter, which often affects both spouses and sometimes children, sits at the intersection of matrimonial, property, and equity law. As such, the legal landscape surrounding it is shaped by a mixture of legislation, judicial discretion, and customary practices.
Understanding how assets are divided in Nigeria requires a clear appreciation of the legal frameworks in operation. Depending on whether the marriage was contracted under statutory law (the Marriage Act), customary law, or Islamic law, the rules governing property division can differ significantly. This creates a broad and sometimes conflicting base of legal principles that influence outcomes in divorce cases. Unlike some jurisdictions where community property regimes automatically entitle spouses to equal shares of marital property, Nigerian law does not provide an express 50-50 formula. The division of property is often discretionary and must be just and equitable, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case.
The topic is particularly important today as increasing numbers of Nigerians, especially in urban and semi-urban regions, resort to statutory marriages and eventually face statutory divorces. This surge naturally raises the legal and social implications of asset ownership, especially in marriages where properties were jointly acquired or financed. Unfortunately, a large number of divorcing couples remain uninformed about their legal rights and obligations concerning property, and many women—especially housewives or low-income earners—are particularly vulnerable in this regard.
Nigerian courts have gradually evolved to play a central role in determining how property is divided post-divorce, especially in statutory marriages. The Matrimonial Causes Act, which governs such marriages, does not provide detailed procedures for property division but allows judges to make orders that they consider just and equitable. As a result, the court may consider several factors such as the contributions (financial and non-financial) of each spouse, the welfare of children, and the length of the marriage. Contributions in this sense are not limited to who paid for what, but also include homemaking, childcare, and emotional support.
However, there are still visible gaps in the application of these principles. In many cases, the lack of documentation or proper title deeds means one party—often the woman—has no direct claim to property she helped build or maintain. The court’s interpretation of “contribution” can also vary widely, leaving outcomes unpredictable and sometimes unjust. For instance, there have been cases where one spouse claims sole ownership of a home or business, despite the other’s substantial involvement, simply because the title is in their name. This has led to many debates on the need for reform and clearer statutory provisions to protect the rights of both parties.
Moreover, customary and Islamic marriages complicate the picture even further. In these cases, the applicable rules vary significantly across ethnic and religious groups. Generally, there is no presumption of joint ownership in customary marriages. Properties are usually regarded as belonging to the husband, unless the wife can prove otherwise. This traditional view has resulted in significant hardship for women who find themselves displaced and disenfranchised after divorce. Some communities may allow for token settlement or gifts to the wife, but these are not legally enforceable and depend heavily on the discretion of family elders or religious leaders.
It is important to emphasize that the courts are not entirely silent on these issues. Nigerian case law, especially in recent years, has increasingly recognized the need to protect spouses who are economically disadvantaged. Landmark judgments have begun to reflect a more equitable interpretation of contributions and ownership, although such rulings are still not the norm across all jurisdictions in the country. As awareness grows and more people seek redress in formal courts rather than traditional or religious systems, there is hope that equity and fairness will become more entrenched in judicial decisions regarding property division.
In conclusion, sharing of property after divorce in Nigeria is a legal and social challenge that demands careful navigation. For legal practitioners, understanding the nuances of statutory, customary, and Islamic laws is essential to effectively represent clients. For the general public, especially those entering or leaving marriages, knowledge of property rights and obligations can prevent future conflict and ensure a fairer outcome. The conversation must continue—not only in courtrooms but also in legislative halls, academic institutions, and civil society—so that reforms can evolve to better protect the interests of all parties involved.
Settlement Of Properties Under Customary Marriage.
Under the customary law, both the man and the woman can acquire property either before or during the marriage. The woman is not barred from holding or acquiring her own property. Also when the man acquires a property, he has sole interest or right over the property. When a marriage under the customary law is been dissolved, the woman has no right to claim for settlement of property even if she contributes to the acquisition of such property. She cannot through a court order compel her husband share the property with her.
Settlement Of Property Under Statutory Marriage.
However under the statutory marriage (marriage under the Act) either of the parties can apply to the court alongside with the divorce petition for the settlement of properties. The legal framework for settlement of property is contained in Section 72 of the Matrimonial Causes Act as mentioned earlier. The property to be settled must belong to either of the parties to the marriage. The court cannot share a property that belongs to neither of the parties. The property can either be real or personal property.
Under the statutory marriage, one of the ways in which the court assess justice and fairness is when the party asking for property to be settled on him/her, shows or establish that he/she has contributed in concrete terms to the acquisition of the property. In KAFI v. KAFI, the wife argued that she gave all necessary moral and financial support to the petitioner (husband) apart from performing all domestic duties as a wife and all this was established. The Trial Judge said in his judgment;
“I accept her evidence and therefore finds that she contributed towards the purchase of some of the lands on which the houses ( now said to be belonging to the husband/respondent ) were built and that she contributed towards the development of the said properties as well as to the success of the business of the husband/respondent. The properties can be regarded as product of their joint efforts.
She therefore deserves in my ruling to have a property settled on her for her benefit and that of the children irrespective of what the husband/respondent would want to do further for the children. The husband is therefore ordered to settle property at 15, Adeola Adeleye Street, ilupeju Lagos by deed on his wife/applicant accordingly”
Whenever a spouse says he/she contributed to the acquisition of a property or construction of a building, this must be proved before the court can grant the order for the property to be shared. In ONABOLU v. ONABOLU, the wife/petitioner claimed among other, against her husband that their joint matrimonial property be shared equally between them or sold and the proceeds of sale shared equally.
The court having carefully examined all the pieces of evidence given by the wife/petitioner and the husband/respondent on issue of joint ownership of the property found that the evidence of the husband/respondent positively established that he bought the land over which the property was built. The Court of Appeal held to this effect:
“It is settled law that a person who claim to be the joint owner of a property must be able to quantify his contribution. He must give detailed particulars and support them where necessary with receipts of what he bought towards the building of the property…..”
Factors The Court May Consider Before Settlement Family Property
The court in determining the extent of the property to be settled, it would consider the circumstances of the case including the fortune of the parties and their responsibility.
In sharing of property, the court is usually guided by what is just and equitable. As such the court has a wide discretionary power to share properties as just and equitable. In exercising this discretionary power, Lord Denning in COOPER v. COOPER held that the court should act judiciously.
Sharing Of Property For Children
The children produced by a marriage are also member of the family. The family property maybe settled in favor of children in some circumstances.
The court will consider sharing of property for the benefit of any child below 21 years of age except in special circumstances where it is justifiable to settle the property for his or her interest even at the age above 21 years.
In conclusion, the application of the law on sharing of property is only applicable to marriages under the Marriage Act and not the marriages under the Customary Law. The presiding judge has a wider discretion to share the properties of couple upon dissolution of marriage in a manner that is just and equitable. Therefore, the court must exercise its discretion judiciously when called upon to share the properties during a divorce proceeding.
Conclusion
In drawing the curtain on the extensive discourse concerning the sharing of property after divorce in Nigeria, it becomes glaringly clear that the landscape remains fraught with inconsistencies, discretionary judgments, and glaring gender imbalances. Divorce, by its very nature, is a rupture of a legal and emotional bond; however, when it also results in the dispossession or unjust deprivation of property—especially for one of the spouses—it becomes not just a personal tragedy, but a legal failure. Despite statutory developments and the growing body of judicial precedents, the reality in many Nigerian divorce cases is that fair and equitable property distribution is still the exception rather than the rule.
The Nigerian legal system, particularly under the Matrimonial Causes Act, places an enormous burden on judicial officers to act with fairness in the absence of specific guidelines. While the law allows the court to make “just and equitable” orders, what constitutes justice or equity is left largely to the judge’s subjective interpretation. This judicial discretion, though necessary in complex cases, can also open the door to unpredictable rulings. What one judge considers fair might be seen as grossly unfair by another. The absence of a standardized formula has created confusion and inconsistency, especially where judges are not adequately sensitized to the realities of marital economics and emotional labor.
Furthermore, societal expectations and deeply rooted patriarchal values often influence the perception of property ownership and entitlement. In many communities, even educated individuals struggle with the idea that a homemaker who did not contribute financially still has a right to shared property. The contributions of women in unpaid domestic roles—raising children, maintaining the home, and supporting the husband’s career—are often overlooked during divorce proceedings. Nigerian courts, although beginning to acknowledge non-financial contributions, are yet to institutionalize such considerations in a clear, consistent manner.
Cases decided in favor of disadvantaged spouses are often celebrated, but they still represent exceptions. Until there is statutory reform that clearly defines property rights within marriage, many spouses will continue to leave marriages empty-handed—regardless of their efforts or sacrifices. Legislative action must take into account the socio-economic realities of Nigerian families, where many women still do not have access to independent income or formal employment. Without legal acknowledgment of these dynamics, justice will remain out of reach for many.
The peculiar case of customary and Islamic marriages cannot be overlooked. These systems, while rooted in tradition and religious beliefs, are not always equipped to address modern challenges of property ownership and division. In many customary settings, women have no legal standing to claim ownership unless explicitly granted by their husbands or their husband’s family. This leaves many wives and mothers vulnerable to homelessness and economic hardship after divorce. Reform in this area must be approached with sensitivity but urgency. Community sensitization, legal awareness campaigns, and the integration of customary law with human rights principles could be key in achieving meaningful change.
It is equally critical to emphasize the role of legal practitioners and public interest lawyers. Advocacy for clients should go beyond court appearances; it must include educating them about their rights, encouraging documentation of contributions, and guiding couples during marriage on the importance of property arrangements. Pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements, though rarely used in Nigeria, can help reduce conflict during divorce. Lawyers must also push for reforms by engaging with policymakers, writing scholarly articles, and participating in public discourse that challenges the status quo.
Moreover, a collaborative approach between the courts, the legislature, civil society, and religious bodies is necessary to create a unified legal framework for the sharing of property after divorce. Judges must be trained to appreciate the economic value of domestic labor and the necessity of equitable distribution. The legislature should consider amending the Matrimonial Causes Act and other relevant statutes to codify clearer property-sharing principles. Civil society organizations can help by offering legal aid and sensitization programs, especially for women in rural and economically disadvantaged areas.
In final analysis, a divorce may signify the end of a relationship, but it should not result in the loss of dignity, financial security, or justice for either party. For Nigeria to move forward in this critical area of family law, there must be a conscious, coordinated effort to develop a property-sharing framework that is not only legally sound but socially just. The sharing of property after divorce in Nigeria must reflect fairness, mutual respect, and the recognition of both financial and emotional investments made by spouses during the course of the marriage. Only then can we say we have achieved true justice in the wake of marital dissolution.