Abel N. B. Stronge v Emilda N.B. Stronge (CIV APP 81 of 1995) [2000] SLCA 1 (25 May 2000)

et " - - gore reise lis wee ASE F.3, some % ey am 7 te, BMD 5.2, stromz , A.F. Serry-Kanal Eaq., for the Appellant | as. Vee aol? Jered) 26% Moy, dose This is an Appeal by the Appellant against tne granting - of a decree absolute by the Respondent during the pending of this Appeal. . ' The Grounds of Appeal are as 2ollows:- w That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law in ghinting ‘ ancillary relief of custody and maintenance when these iss | issues to wit, custody and maintenance were not before ! hin and in naling orders on matters not in iscue tefoza { hin.

2. That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law to have required the Appellant to make compensation towards tae . i three adult children o> the marriage when the issue of compensation for the ssid children “was not before him} 3. ‘The Learned Trial Judge acting on wrong principles when , he made absolute the decree nisi pronounced:om thie “4th day of October 1995 as amended on the 22nd day of Jan- “ vary 1996 during the pendent of the appeal to the Court a “of Appedl against the aforesaid decree nisi. Tgarned Counsel for the Appellant said that a decree nisi gas prounounced on the 17th October 1995 and tae decree absolute granted on the 44th June 1966. ‘he Notice of Appeal was dated = 18th Octeber, 1995. ‘Je told the court that no decree nisi can “| be nade absolute waile there was an appeal pending except where damages was given. ‘le referred to Raydon on Divorce gth Baition 4 Paragrath 4 Sub Paragrath 1 and Llgod Davies 1947 1 AER 167'W.vs W& D 1948 Probate Page

846. He submitted that the trial judge was wrong in sitting as an eppellate court over his own order, the decree nisi having'been perfected and dravm. %& Pies oo

|i a—— B - 2 6 im In this matter a decree nisi was pronounced on the 17% day of V: 4995 exd amended on the 22nd day of Jamary 1996. The Nctice of Appeal was cated 18th October 1995 and a decree absolute was granted | on the 14ta June 1996 while the appeal was pending: | tt is clear from the autncrities cited that a decree nisi mst i not be made ateolute while an cppeal is pending see vide Lloyd - pevies v. Hyod Davies 1947 7.53 prtege the appeal t= on the quanto | of danages only Vide WvW and Dg 1948) P.57. me trial judge in his judgnent on “he 17th October 1995 in I pronouncing tee decree nisi made the following ancillary Orders: 1 and fGzonientherants custody of Mollicent Noreen. we 2, te Petitioner_, shall ‘be owésppnsible for the education bills of Hillicent Norseen. The institutions of learning wld,be agreed py bota parents, All such. institutions should sole _— of of the Petitioner. 3. the Petitioner shall also be responsible for Millicent's medical pills reeconably incurred and within the means of the Petitioner. 4, Tae Petitioner shall maintain the said Millicent, e+ until she 4s of age and is of independent means. A secured sum shall be %) ptated after consultation with both sides in chambers.

5. Touga this court does not wish to make it an order for the computation and payment of all relevant expenditure Petitioner failea to pay for nis children since December, 1990, tae court will ure@ that Petitioner be magnanimous enough to offer sone _ form compensation towards this road. ” tic was amended by an order of tne court dated 22nd January, 1996 as follows! - . ‘ : "It ig hereby ordered as follows:" Taat tae orders as to maintenance and custody in the Decree Nisi herein be varied by deletion of tne words "AND IT IS ORDERED " as follows to the end of the Decree Nisi. Tae Learned Trial Judge ought not to have granted ancillary orders in his pronouncement of the decree nigi on the 17th Octoter, | 1995 since these matters were not argued before him in court and quite | a sive |

| << h 3 © , Hs rigitly 80 a9 all ancillary matters were to be argued in

Chambers after the pronouncement of the decree nisi,

The Learned Triad Judge was also wrong in varying tae order of the 22nd January 1996 since he cannot sit on his own

Judgment

For the reasons given above the decree absolute is hereby set aside and tae decree nisi pronounced on the 17th October, 1995 is hereby varied to emclude all ancillary matters, Liberty to apply. No Order as to Cost$- -

. a = og ma (Sga) Hon? Mrs. Justice V.A.D.Wrights = au y

T phe SD

ps . . . #