There are divorce cases that quietly dissolve behind closed doors, and then there are those that leave permanent memories etched into a lawyer’s career. This is one of those stories.
Several years ago I handled a divorce matter that taught me more about human behaviour than any law textbook ever could. The petitioner was the husband, and the respondent was his wife. From the very beginning the case was already complicated, not because of legal loopholes but because of sheer human resistance.
The wife refused to appear in court. She refused to engage a lawyer. She refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the petition. Every adjournment came with the same explanation: service had been effected, hearing notices delivered, yet the respondent simply did not care.
Read Also: Michelle Alozie Joins Chicago Stars FC in Three-Year NWSL Move
The presiding judge, however, was not ready to proceed without her presence. Each court sitting ended the same way, with the insistence that the statutory conference must be held. In family law judges are mandated to encourage reconciliation where possible. It is the law, and it is also wisdom.
On one particular sitting the judge refused again to hear the matter without the wife. I respectfully explained that all legal steps had been taken and that the respondent’s refusal to participate should not stall justice. That was the wrong submission to make that morning.
The judge was visibly displeased. I was instructed to do more than service. I was told to obtain her phone number, call her, meet her and attempt reconciliation. It felt like I was being cast as the villain determined to scatter a marriage that one party clearly wanted out of.
Read Also: Ademola Lookman delivers again as Super Eagles talisman shines on AFCON stage
The petitioner was asked directly whether he was open to settlement. His response was immediate and emotional. He wanted a divorce, nothing more, nothing less. He explained that they were still living under the same roof and that he was simply waiting for the divorce to either leave or send the woman packing.
The court still insisted that I meet with both parties.
Anyone who has practised law long enough knows that this is the point where you say, ‘As the Court pleases,’ and move on with your life.
After court I collected the wife’s phone number from my client and called her immediately. I invited her to my office for a meeting. She refused. If I wanted to speak with her, she said my client should bring me to their house.
We agreed to meet at their residence later that day.
By 5pm I arrived. We sat together and began to discuss the matter calmly. Then the moment came that still lives rent-free in my memory.
She asked me if my client had told me he was serious about the divorce.
I replied that we were already in court and that he had openly told the judge so that very morning.
She laughed.
Read Also: When the Whistle Holders Take the Field: Lagos Referees Ready for Championship Showdown
‘Serious about which divorce?’ she asked. Is it not the same court he came back from this afternoon and still collected “doggy” before going out again?’
Silence filled the room.
I turned slowly to my client. He avoided my eyes.
That was it.
I quietly packed my file, walked to my car and drove off.
After all the courtroom tension, after standing there looking angry after the judge practically flogged me verbally because of this case, you still went back home and acted like nothing was happening.
This profession will humble you.
Mr Evaritus Gregory Not your real name, of course; it has been years, but the memory remains. I know you will read this one day. I know you will laugh.
From the depths of my professional soul, sir, thunder fire you.
