The Future Law of Divorce in Cameroon: should Divorce be based only on restrictive (fault-based) Grounds?
Keywords:
Grounds for Divorce, Fault Grounds, Liberal Grounds, Customary LawAbstract
The present law of divorce in Cameroon is a hotchpotch of customs and different colonial influences, all brought together since independence. Some of the rules are stagnant while others change as the rules in the foreign country of origin vary. Some are modern while others are archaic and discriminatory. This diversity makes the law of divorce in Cameroon extremely complex, leading to unfairness in its application. The present situation calls for reform. There is conflict between restrictive grounds for divorce which are based on a matrimonial fault committed by the defendant and liberal grounds which allow divorce in the absence of any fault by the parties. Which of these rules (restrictive or liberal) should form the basis of divorce reform in Cameroon? I argue that for constitutional and social reasons, these conflicting rules are both important and effect should be given to both. I have therefore suggested reform which is geared towards both. However, three fundamental objectives run through this article: to support the institution of marriage up to the point that it has irretrievably broken down, to minimise the distress and bitterness in divorce and to eliminate discriminatory practices.
References
1. This is by virtue of section 15 of the Southern Cameroon High Court Law (SCHL). 1955.
2. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 1 (2) (a)-(c).
3. Nako Kofele Martin Alain v . Ndive Epeti Likawo (CRB n o 2, 2012-2013-Customary Court Tiko) p1 unreported.
4. Paul Anya v Bih Anya (Customary court Limbe, Civil book 8/86-87) 23.
5. This is by virtue of section 15 of the Southern Cameroons High Court Law 1955.
6. Section 1 (2) (a-c).
7. Goodrich v Goodrich (1971)2 All E R 1340.
8. Cleary v Cleary (1974)1 All E R.
9. Suit No HCB/2MC/05-06 (unreported)
10. 1974)1 All E R 498.
11. M Freeman, Understanding Family Law (1stedn Sweet and Maxwell 2007) p93.
12. M Hayes and C Williams, Family Law Principles, Policy and Practice (2nd edn Butterworths London 1999) p411-412.
13. (Suit no HCSW/21/mc/78) unreported.
14. See also Mbiaffie v Mbiaffie (Suit n o HCSW/30/mc/85) unreported.
15. Simon Tabe, in A Comparative Study of the Causes and Ramifications of Divorce under Statutory Law in Cameroon (unpublished thesis, Yaoundé 1999) p87 is of the view that decisions of Anglophone judges that are not in line with the Cleary case are wrongly decided.
16. N Lowe and G Douglas, Bromley’s Family Law (11th edn Oxford University Press 2015) p268.
17. Pheasant v Pheasant (1972) Fam 202.
18. Birch v Birch (1992) FLR 564 CA.
19. (1974) 2 All E R 766 p771.
20. (Suit no HCB/33MC/00-01) unreported.
21. Inglis J. in Mendi v Mendi (Suit n o HCSW/80 mc/80) unreported; Mbiaffie v Mbiaffie (Suit n o HCSW/30 mc/85 unreported. See E Ngwafor, Family Law in Anglophone Cameroon (1st edn, University of Regina Press 1993) p132 - 135.
22. Sandjo v . Sandjo (Suit n o HCSW/74 mc/80) unreported; Shu v Shu ( Suit no HCB/16/85 unreported; Ndumu v Ndumu (Suit n o HCSW/78 mc/83) unreported; Tona v Tona (Suit n o HCSW/102 mc/84) unreported. See E Ngwafor (n6).
23. Bannister v Bannister (1980)1 Fam 240 CA.
24. (1972). The Times, April 19th.
25. (n26) p. 240.
26. Tabufor J. in Ndifor Elizabeth Swiri v Anye Richard Fru (Suit n HCB/18MC/05 -06) unreported; Nseke v Nseke (Suit n HCSW/108MC/84) unreported. N Lowe and G Douglas (n18).
27. (Suit no HCB/2MC/05-06) unreported.
28. Articles 229 and 230 of the civil code.
29. Article 231 of the civil code.
30. Article 232 of the civil code.
31. Kom Médard v Dame Domkam Simone Epouse Kom (Jugement no 10/CIV/TGI du 11 Juillet 2011) unreported.
32. Guedje Jean v Dame Guedje née Akoumo JFAL (2019) 15-29 © Law Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved Page 29 Sabine (Jugement n o 21/CIV/TGI du 09 Mai 2005) unreported.
33. (Civil Suit n o 68/86-87, CRB 3/86 -87) unreported.
34. See also Monono v Monono (Civil suit n o 81/87-88 CRB8/87) unreported; Miami Lydie v Nana Celestin (CBK 01/2014-case no 066/2014) unreported (Customary Court Buea).
35. (Civil suit n o 174/86-87, CRB 1/86 -87) p281 unreported (Customary Court Mankon); Ade Vincent v Ngwe Scholastica (Civil suit n o 106/86-87, CRB 1/86 -87) p177 unreported (Customary Court Mankon).
36. MCA 1973 section 5.
37. Talbot v Talbot (1971) 115 Sol Jo 870.
38. ibid; See also Mathias v Mathias (1972) Fam 287.
39. Tamfu Nfor Divine v Tansi Gwendoline Mbuli (Suit no 105/2013 -CRB 1/2013) unreported; Njofang Michael v Elizabeth Wanji (Suit no 06/2013 -CRB 2/2012) unreported.
40. (CRB n o 2, 2012 -2013-Customary Court Tiko) p1 unreported. It is not very clear why this case had to be dissolved in a customary court since it was a monogamous marriage and all customary marriages are polygamous.
41. (Suit No HCB/112m/89) unreported.
42. Although the High Court accepted the applicant’s request to convert his monogamous marriage into a polygamous one, it is doubtful that such a decision would be maintained were the case to go on appeal.
43. B Djuidje Chatué, Les Conflits de lois dans l'avant-projet de code camerounais des personnes et de la famille-Vers une réforme conséquente ? (1st edn L'Harmattan Publisher Paris 2013) p10.
44. E Scott, ‘Marital Commitment and The Legal Regulation of Divorce’ in A Dnes & R Rowthorn, The Law and Economics of Marriage & Divorce (Cambridge University Press 2002) p35.
45. R Deech, ‘Divorce Law and Empirical Studies’ LQR (1990) p243.
46. I Ellman, ‘The Misguided Movement to Revive Fault Divorce and Why Reformers Should Look Instead to the American Law Institute’, IJLFP (1997) p221.
47. E Scott in A Dnes & R Rowthorn (n48) p35.
48. ibid p35 – 36.
49. S Bridge, ‘Marriage and Divorce: The Regulation of Intimacy’ in J Herring, Family law: Issues, Debates, Policy (William Publishers 2001) p8-44.
50. E Scot in A Dnes & R Rowthorn (n48) p36.
51. A Parkman, ‘Mutual Consent Divorce’ in A Dnes & R Rowthorn (n48) p61.
52. Hansard (HL), vol 569, col 1638, Quoted by The Right Honourable Lady Justice Hale DBE, ‘The Family Law Act -Dead Duck or Golden Goose’ in S Cretney (ed) Essays for the New Millennium (published by Family Law 2008) p27.
53. England. The Law Commission (Law Com No 192) The Ground for Divorce, Part 11.
54. ibid (i) 2.8 p5.
55. A N Lowe and G Douglas (n18) p213.
56. Stringfellow v Stringfellow (1976)2 ALL E R p539; Buffery v Buffery (1988)2 FLR p365
57. Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 section 1 (2).
58. MCA 1973 section 1 (2).
59. MCA section 1 (4).
60. England. Law Commission (Law Com N o 192), The Ground for Divorce (n62) p5-2.9.
61. E Scot, ‘Marital Commitment and the Legal Regulations of Divorce’ in A Dnes & R Rowthorn (n48) p35.
62. H Fuchiron, ‘The New French Divorce Law’ ISFL (2005) p242.
63. England. Law Commission (Law Com N o 192), The Ground for Divorce (n62), p7 (iv).
64. Also, the draft Family code has only fault grounds for divorce.
65. A Parkman, ‘Mutual Consent Divorce’ in A Dnes & R Rowthorn (n48) p61. Cite this Article Acha-Morfaw Epse Ghogomu Dorothy . should Divorce be based only on restrictive (fault-based) Grounds? Journal of Family & Adoption Law. 2019; 2(1): 15–29p.
