COLLINS CHIKEZIE CHIKELUBA v VALERIE NWANODU CHIKELUBA

Permission to appeal in financial-relief proceedings under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 requires a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with findings of fact, intervening only where the decision is demonstrably contrary to the evidence or the decision-making process is plainly defective.

A party cannot rely on further evidence or alleged procedural deficiencies resulting from that party’s own deliberate failure to comply with financial and disclosure orders. In family financial proceedings, the court may draw reasonable inferences from incomplete disclosure, using experience and inherent probabilities, but it must avoid speculation. A foreign injunction does not prevent an English court from exercising jurisdiction validly engaged under Part III where the injunction has no extra-territorial effect.

The appellant sought permission to appeal a Recorder Nice’s order of 3 February 2023 made in Part III proceedings following the parties’ Nigerian divorce. The order transferred the appellant’s Paddington property to the respondent, capitalised spousal maintenance, provided for their younger child, and awarded costs on an indemnity basis.

The appellant challenged the English court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the hearing, the absence of expert evidence on Nigerian law, findings concerning duress and the parties’ standard of living, his ability to pay, the effect of a Nigerian injunction, the quantum of relief, and costs. He also remained in deliberate breach of earlier interim orders and subject to a Hadkinson debarring order.

The central issues were whether the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success or another compelling basis for permission, and whether the Recorder had erred in law or plainly erred in evaluating the evidence.

1. Permission refused. The appellant failed to show either a real prospect of success or another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under r.30.3(7) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
2. The Recorder had been entitled to proceed despite the appellant’s failure to engage with the remote hearing and his continuing contempt. He had been given a full opportunity to present his arguments, so there was no breach of his Article 6 right to a fair hearing.
3. The appellant could not rely on his recitation of Nigerian law as fresh evidence. Nor could he complain about the absence of expert evidence when the need for such evidence had not been pursued through proper case management and his own deliberate non-payment had deprived the respondent of funds to instruct an expert.
4. The Recorder had correctly applied the guidance on Part III claims in Agbaje v Akinnoye-Agbaje. The English jurisdiction had already been validly engaged. Mere disparity with the Nigerian provision was insufficient, but the Recorder was entitled to find good and substantial grounds for concluding that injustice would result if the respondent were held to the Nigerian settlement.
5. The Nigerian injunction did not have extra-territorial effect preventing the respondent from pursuing the English proceedings. The court respected Nigerian judicial authority and judicial comity, but the injunction did not remove the English court’s jurisdiction.
6. The Recorder was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the appellant’s incomplete disclosure and to rely on experience and inherent probabilities, consistently with Prest v Petrodel, without engaging in speculation. Her findings on resources, needs, marital standard of living, child support and indemnity costs disclosed no error of law or plainly defective reasoning.
7. The temporary stay was lifted. Permission to appeal the order of 20 March 2023 was also refused. Costs of the appeal were payable by the appellant, subject to written representations on the sums claimed.

• High Court (Family Division): Permission to appeal Recorder Nice’s order of 3 February 2023 was refused. The temporary stay was lifted and permission to appeal the order of 20 March 2023 was also refused.
• Central Family Court: Recorder Nice made the substantive Part III financial-relief order on 3 February 2023.