Authored By: Zoe Ayomikun Ibikunle
Afe-Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti
INTRODUCTION
The case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130 remains one of the most influential authorities in family law, particularly in defining marriage under English law. Decided by Lord Penzance in the Court of Probate and Divorce, the case established the classical legal definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” This definition became a cornerstone of matrimonial jurisprudence across common law jurisdictions, including Nigeria. Although this judgment was delivered in the nineteenth century, its doctrinal implications continue to shape legal debates surrounding marriage, polygamy, and the recognition of foreign marital systems. The decision’s enduring significance lies in its formulation of a narrow, Christian-based conception of marriage which, though authoritative for over a century, has faced sustained criticism and reform in modern legal systems.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, John Hyde, had formerly been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon Church) and resided in Salt Lake City, Utah, a territory of the United States. While living there, Hyde married a woman, Anne Woodmansee, according to the rites and customs of the Mormon faith, which permitted polygamous marriages. After some time, Hyde abandoned Mormonism, left Utah, and settled in England. Subsequently, he sought to dissolve his marriage by petitioning for divorce in the English Court of Probate and Divorce, alleging that his wife had committed adultery with another man.
However, the case presented a jurisdictional issue. The court had to determine whether a marriage celebrated under the laws and customs of the Mormon community, which recognized polygamy, could be considered a valid and subsisting “marriage” within the meaning of English matrimonial law. If such a marriage were not recognized, then the court would have no jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition concerning it.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
The principal legal issue before the court was whether a polygamous marriage contracted under a system of law that recognizes polygamy constitutes a valid marriage under English law for the purpose of matrimonial relief. A related question also arose as to whether an English court could exercise jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage that, under the law of its formation, allowed for the existence of multiple spouses simultaneously.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner’s Argument
John Hyde, through his counsel, contended that his marriage to Anne Woodmansee was a genuine marital relationship, and that despite being performed under Mormon law, it involved mutual consent, cohabitation, and an intention to be bound as husband and wife. He argued that the English court should recognize the union as a marriage capable of dissolution by divorce.
Respondent’s Argument
The respondent, Anne Woodmansee, maintained that the marriage was not valid under English law since it was performed under a legal system that permitted polygamy. She argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant matrimonial relief in respect of a relationship that was not a marriage in the eyes of English law. The Attorney-General, invited as amicus curiae, supported this argument, asserting that English matrimonial jurisdiction was confined to unions conforming to the Christian monogamous model of marriage. Hence, a polygamous union could not be regarded as a marriage within the meaning of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857.
JUDGMENT
The judgment was delivered by Lord Penzance, who dismissed the petition for divorce. His Lordship held that the marriage between Hyde and Woodmansee was not a valid marriage in the sense recognized by English law and, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction to dissolve it. Lord Penzance’s ruling provided the now-famous definition of marriage: “I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” This reflected the Christian and monogamous conception of marriage that prevailed in English society at the time. The court thus dismissed Hyde’s petition on the ground that no marriage, in the legal sense, existed between the parties.
RATIO DECIDENDI AND OBITER DICTA
Ratio Decidendi: A union celebrated under a system of law that recognizes polygamy is not a valid marriage within the meaning of English law. English courts lack jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial proceedings arising from such unions.
Obiter Dicta: Lord Penzance’s remarks on the definition of marriage became the foundational legal statement on the nature of marriage in common law, cited extensively in subsequent jurisprudence.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Significance of the Definition
The definition laid down in Hyde v Hyde became the orthodox legal standard of marriage in England and other common law jurisdictions. In Nigeria, which inherited the English common law tradition, Hyde v Hyde significantly influenced the Marriage Act (Cap M6, LFN 2004) and the Matrimonial Causes Act (Cap M7, LFN 2004), both of which operate on the assumption of monogamous unions.
Jurisdictional and Cultural Implications
The judgment demonstrated the jurisdictional limitations of English matrimonial law and reflected a cultural bias towards Christian values. By refusing to recognize polygamous marriages, the decision marginalized non-Christian marital systems. This reasoning influenced colonial and post-colonial systems like Nigeria, where pluralistic marriage regimes exist.
Criticisms of the Judgment
The judgment has been criticized for being unduly narrow and religiously biased, excluding relationships that did not conform to the Christian model, such as polygamous, customary, or same-sex unions. It failed to account for the diversity of matrimonial systems globally.
Later Developments and Legal Reforms
Cases such as Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83 reaffirmed the decision, while Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21 led to reforms through the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which expanded the definition of marriage. In Nigeria, courts such as Olawoye v Olawoye (1963) WRNLR 158 have continued to apply Hyde v Hyde in interpreting statutory marriages.
Modern Relevance
Despite its age, Hyde v Hyde remains relevant as a historical foundation for marriage law. Its definition continues to be cited in legal materials, though it is increasingly seen as outdated in pluralistic societies.
CONCLUSION
Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) stands as a landmark in family law. By defining marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, it influenced matrimonial jurisprudence across the common law world. While the case has been criticized for its narrow and exclusive definition, its historical role in shaping marriage law remains undeniable.
REFERENCES (OSCOLA)
Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130.
Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) [1971] P 83.
Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21.
Olawoye v Olawoye (1963) WRNLR 158.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (UK).
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (UK).
Marriage Act, Cap M6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap M7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
J.O. Odekoya, Family Law in Nigeria (University of Lagos Press 2018).
C. A. Okpaluba, ‘The Definition of Marriage in Common Law Jurisdictions’ (2015) 23 African Journal of Law and Practice 41.
