Celebration of church Marriage whether is valid marriage under the Nigeria law

There is a difference between a statutory marriage and a church marriage. A church marriage is not necessarily a marriage under the act. The fact of a celebration of a marriage in a church does not constitute the marriage a marriage under the Act. Such a marriage must comply with the requirement of the act to be a statutory marriage. A church marriage without more is a customary marriage. In Nwangwa v. Ubani (1997) 10 N.W.L.R. pt 526, p.559. The court of appeal held that the mere celebration of a marriage in a church as was done in the case does not confer statutory flavor to the marriage. The court stated that in order to convert a customary law marriage into statutory law marriage the parties must consciously take steps and adopt the procedure contained in the marriage act. The court cited with approval in Martin v. Adenugba  (1964) 18 NLR 63, Anyaegbunam v. Anyaegbunam (1973) 4 SC 121. the rule to comply are these:
(A)   it must be conducted by a recognized minister of the religious organization concerned the place of worship must be a place licensed under the Marriage Act to conduct                 marriage
(B)   There must be minimum of two witnesses before conducting the marriage, the minister must be certain that the Marriage Certificate has been obtained by the parties.
(C)   the marriage must take place between 8am to 6pm
(D)   the minister must send a copy of the Marriage Certificate to the Registrar of Marriage within 7 days of the marriage.
Failure to comply with any of the formal requirements, does not in any way affect the validity of a marriage.
However section 12 and section 33 (33) specifically stated that where certain formal requirements are not complied with, the marriage shall be void. Thus section 12 states that a marriage shall be celebrated within 3 months of the filling of the notice and that if the marriage does not take place within that period the notice and all subsequent proceedings shall be void.
Section 33(2) states that a marriage shall be void if both parties knowingly and willfully acquiesce in its celebration:

in any other place other than the place of a registrar of marriages or a licensed place of worship; or under a false name or without a registrar’s certificate of notice or special licence, or by a person not been a recognized minister of some religious denomination or body or a registrar of marriages.
It would therefore appear that failure to comply with formalities will result in voidness only if it is in relation to the formalities in section 12 and 33 (2). However, section 33 (3) goes on to state as follows: ‘But as no marriage shall, after celebration, be deemed invalid by reason that any provision of the ordinance other than the foregoing has not been complied with.”
By implication therefore even non-compliance with section 12 should not result in voildness. It has in fact been suggested that following the principles of statutory interpretation since section 33(3) is a later section than section 12, in case of conflict, as we now have, that later section should prevail. See kasumu and salacuse- Nigerian family law , butterworths,1966,p.53
One other problem of interpretation is the meaning to be attached to the term- knowingly and willfully – in section 33(2). In obiekwe v. obiekwe (1963)17 ENLR 197. Palmer J., defined the word willfully as meaning a deliberate act. “ the attitude of the mind, I think, be I know there ought to be a certificate, I know there is no certificate, nevertheless I shall go through with the ceremony”.
Indeed, most of the cases in which this issue has arisen concern marriages according to “Roman catholic rites” in which the parties failed to obtain a registrar’s certificate beforehand. This prompted palmer j., to declare in obiekwe v. obiekwe (supra) “that legally a marriage in a church (any denomination) is either a marriage under ordinance or it is nothing”. However the serving provision that such a marriage is void only if the two parties enter into it “knowingly and willfully,” has been applied repeatedly to uphold the validity of marriages in such there was no registrar certificate. See Akoludike v. akwudike (1963)7 ENLR5, the attitude of the court is well illustrated by the following statement of okagbue, j, in Ejikeme v. Ejekeme. Unreported suit no E/10D/71. “ if I have any doubt in my mind that the petitioner did not know that the registrar’s certificate was not in existence, or having that knowledge did not know of such a certificate, I would have no hesitation in pronouncing for the validity of the marriage”.
What this means is that if a man deceives a woman that he has completed all the required formalities for their marriage, including obtaining a registrar’s certificate, when in fact he has not, provided the woman believes that the statement is true, the marriage will be held valid at law. Thus she will enjoy all the rights of a legitimate wife under the marriage act and matrimonial causes act, and the marriage can only be terminated by formal divorce petition at a high court. Thus under the marriage act, the marriage in martin v. adenugha (supra) it should be noted that this approach is equally applicable to the other three formalities in section 33(2). Thus in Aiyegbusi v. Aiyegbusi (1974) 1 /23871 marriage in a church not licenced for worship did not invalidate the marriage because the parties were not aware of this defect at the time of the marriage ceremony.