Preface

122
their marriage was done by the respondent long before they appeared at the lower
court. The parties appeared before the lower court as a result of a summons the
respondent took out in that court seeking the intervention of the court to compel
the appellant to vacate his house at Bakau in which he lived with the appellant as
husband and wife and no more.
Having cleared that point, I now proceed to determine the appeal on its
merit. In doing so, it is worth mentioning that most of the issues raised by the
appellant in her argument as to the issue of lack of taking the interest of her
children into consideration by the lower court, the issue of her being assaulted by
her co-wife and the issue of her being before the Children’s Court with the
respondent do not carry any weight since they were neither raised before the lower
court nor was any decision founded on them by it. The appellant’s core complaint
therefore revolves around her ejectment which she claimed was unlawful. I
consequently formulate the following three issues for determination in that regard,
to wit,
1. Whether the lower court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter taking into
consideration the way the case was constituted before the lower court?
2. Whether the appellant is entitled in law to stay in the respondent’s house
after she had been divorced and has consequently completed her iddah
(waiting period)?
3. Whether the ejectment of the appellant by the lower court was wrongful?
Resolution of issue 1 above in favour of the appellant leads this Panel to the
determination of the 2 nd and 3 rd issues. Similarly resolution of the 2 nd issue in
favour of the appellant leads the Panel to determination of the 3 rd issue. That is, if
this Panel holds that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain this case as it did,