Secker v Secker (Div.C 36/05 2005 S NO. 3)  SLHC 14 (06 July 2006);
Div.C 36/05 2005 S NO. 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
LYDIA CLAUDIA SECKER (MRS.) -PETITIONER
PRINCE ADONIJAH SECKER -RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE HON. MRS. JUSTICE C. L. TAYLOR JUDGE DATED THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY , 2006
This is a divorce petition between Lydia Claudia Seeker Petitioner and Prince Adonijah Seeker Respondent. The matter is a defended cause-but despite filing an answer the Respondent failed to appear when the matter was heard. The Petitioner is an Administrative Assistant at the UNICEF Freetown. The Respondent is unemployed. The Petitioner and the Respondent were married on the4th January, 1995 at the Buxton Memorial Church Charles Street, Freetown. The marriage certificate is in evidence as Exhibit "A". After the marriage the Petitioner and the Respondent lived and cohabited at No. 7, Bass Street Brookfields. There is no child of the marriage.
The Petitioner and the Respondent were living with the Respondent's mother, brother, son, nephew, sister-in-law and the aunt of his sister-in-law. The Petitioner deposed that his relatives were always interfering in their marriage. The Petitioner narrated several acts of cruelty perpetrated by the Respondent against her. Whenever there was a quarrel between the Petitioner and the Respondent's relatives in the house the Respondent would never give the
Petitioner the opportunity to give her own side of the story but he would take sides of his relatives and would abuse her.
The Petitioner narrated an occasion in which the Respondent for incurring high electricity bill. When the Petitioner tried to explain to the Respondent he slapped and kicked her.
On another occasion whilst they attended Church Service at Christ Church Pademba Road the Respondent accused the Petitioner of hitting his girlfriend at the Communion rail and started to abuse her in the Church and after service he continued to abuse her in the presence of the sidesmen and sideswomen. The Petitioner walked over to the car to wait for the Respondent to take her home but the Respondent refused saying that he was going on a visit with the other sidesmen and sideswomen and therefore would not take her home.
The Petitioner further deposed that the Respondent does not provide financially for the maintenance of the matrimonial home and that she has to provide money for the running of the home. She also paid wages of the house helper.
The Petitioner further deposed that since she did not have an issue with the Respondent she visited a gynaecologist who requested that the Respondent should undergo certain tests because she was alright. The Respondent refused to go to the doctor. The Respondent told the Petitioner that since the marriage they have been plagued with bad luck and that his friends were laughing at him. The Respondent was inn the habit of writing letters to the Petitioner and these are in evidence as Exhibit "B" and "C" in which he was asking the Petitioner to forgive his actions.
The Petitioner further deposed that in 1997 she was relocated to Kambia and received subsistence allowance of Le.10 Million for a period of nine months. The Petitioner suggested that the money should be used to buy a piece of land but the Respondent said that he wanted the money to do business. The Petitioner used the money to buy a piece of land. The Respondent was not happy about this and told his relatives that she would not be able to complete the house which she was building.
On the 9th June, 2002 the Petitioner moved out of the matrimonial home with a few personal effects to the house that she was building. In 2004 when the house was completed the Respondent contacted her. The Petitioner did not welcome him.
The Petitioner further deposed that during the war in Liberia she was worried about the safety of her mother but the Respondent did not show any sympathy for her despite the fact that she was traumatised.
The Petitioner is seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Respondent having failed to appear in Court for the trail the Court is dismissing his answer to the petition. It is evident that the parties can no longer live together.
I hold that the Petitioner has proved her case against the Respondent on the balance of probabilities on the ground of cruelty.
I hereby pronounce the decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent had and solemnised on the 4th January, 1995.
K. M. Lisk States:-
I am applying that in the light of the levity with which the Respondent has subjected this Honourable Court the time he abridged between the decree nisi and the decree absolute for a period of two weeks instead of three months.
The application is granted
The period between the decree nisi and the decree absolute is abridged to two weeks.
SGD: - HON. MRS.JUSTICE C.L. TAYLOR 6th JULY 2006.