When it comes to family law, questions about the validity of foreign marriages can be some of the trickiest. A recent case, KU v BI [2025] EWFC 296 (B), shows just how complex things can become when English courts are asked to recognise a marriage celebrated overseas—in this instance, in Nigeria—without either party even being present.

The Background

The parties had lived together in England since 2013 and had three children together. The wife (KU) argued that they were married in a Nigerian customary ceremony in March 2013, which entitled her to seek a divorce. The husband (BI), however, denied that any valid marriage had taken place, pointing to the fact that neither of them had even travelled to Nigeria for the alleged wedding.

Complicating matters further, BI was still married to someone else under English law at the time—something KU said she only discovered later.

The Legal Issues

The court had to grapple with whether the Nigerian ceremony amounted to a valid marriage, capable of recognition under English law. The starting point is clear:

• Locus regit actum – if a marriage is valid in the place where it is celebrated, it will generally be valid everywhere else .
• English courts distinguish between a valid marriage, a void marriage (where defects exist, e.g. polygamy), and a non-marriage (where what happened cannot be regarded as a marriage at all) .

An expert in Nigerian law was appointed. He explained that under Nigerian customary law there are three requirements:

1. Capacity to marry.
2. Payment of a bride price (dowry).
3. A marriage ceremony involving the formal handing over of the bride to the husband’s family .

The problem? The wife did not attend the ceremony in Nigeria, raising doubts about whether the “handing over” requirement was satisfied.

The Court’s Approach

Despite this, the judge noted that:

• Both parties intended to be married and had lived for a decade as husband and wife.
• There was video evidence of a large celebration with both families, dowry payments, and references to the parties as “in-laws.”
• It would be unreasonable to conclude there was no marriage at all simply because KU was not physically present in Nigeria.

The court therefore held that the marriage was valid in Nigeria, and thus recognised in England. KU could proceed with her divorce petition.

Why This Matters: The RI v NG Comparison

The contrast with RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B) is striking. In that case, an unmarried couple disputed ownership of jewellery, leading the court to dust off the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 to decide who owned what. There, because no marriage existed, the court could only resolve property rights—not wider financial claims.

Together, these cases highlight the crucial threshold question: are the parties married in law?

• If yes (KU v BI), the full financial remedies jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 applies.
• If no (RI v NG), parties are limited to property law routes like MWPA 1882 or TOLATA.

Key Pointers for Practitioners

• Always check local law: The validity of an overseas ceremony depends on compliance with the law where it was celebrated.
• Void vs. non-marriage matters: A void marriage still opens the door to financial claims; a non-marriage does not.
• Evidence of intention and recognition helps: Community acceptance and family testimony can be crucial in customary marriages.
• Early advice is key: Couples who assume they are married abroad may later discover otherwise—potentially limiting their rights.

Wider Principles

KU v BI illustrates several important points:

• Foreign marriages are judged by the law of the place of celebration. English courts won’t impose their own requirements, but they will apply English remedies (e.g. nullity or divorce) if the marriage is recognised.
• The line between a void marriage and a non-marriage matters. A void marriage still allows financial claims; a non-marriage does not.
• Evidence of intention and community recognition can carry weight, particularly in customary systems where formal documentation may be lacking.
• Complications arise where one party is already married. Under s11 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a polygamous marriage can be void if entered into by someone domiciled in England —but here, the Nigerian law was treated differently.

Final Thought

KU v BI shows the family courts’ willingness to recognise genuine foreign marriages, even where the formalities look unusual by English standards. It also underlines the stark difference in outcomes depending on whether a relationship is classed as a marriage, a void marriage, or a non-marriage—a distinction neatly illustrated by comparing this decision with that in RI v NG.