JUDGMENT

Evrol Mariette Peters J:

Introduction

[1] This was an application by the Petitioner-Husband in encl 17 seeking to backdate the Certificate of decree nisi made Absolute ("the Decree Absolute") dated 16 January 2025 to 8 August 2000.

[2] To protect the privacy of the parties, and due to the sensitive nature of the issues involved, the Petitioners have been anonymised in this judgment as HEB (Petitioner-Husband) and HEM (Petitioner-Wife), respectively.

The Factual Background

[3] The Petitioners were granted a decree nisi for divorce on 19 June 2000 under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 ("Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act").

[4] However, no steps were taken thereafter to make the decree nisi absolute within the time period prescribed by s 61 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, nor was any special application made to truncate that timeline. Section 61 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act reads:

Section 61 - and proceedings thereafter

(1) Every decree of divorce shall in the first instance be a decree nisi and shall not be made absolute before the expiration of three months from its grant unless the court by general or special order from time to time fixes a shorter period.

(2) Where a decree nisi of divorce has been granted and no application for it to be made absolute has been made by the party to whom it was granted, then, at any time after the expiration of three months from the earliest date on which that party could have made such an application, the party against whom it was granted may make an application to the court and on that application the court may:

(a) notwithstanding the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, make the decree absolute;

(b) rescind the decree nisi;

(c) require further inquiry; or

(d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

[Emphasis Added]

[5] The decree nisi, therefore, remained dormant and was not made absolute for an extended period of over 24 years. It was only in January 2025 that the decree nisi was finally made absolute, bringing formal legal closure to the marriage.

[6] During this prolonged interval, and more specifically in the year 2001, the Petitioner-Husband entered into a second marriage and later had children from that union. It bears emphasis that, at the time of contracting this subsequent marriage, the Petitioner-Husband remained legally married to his first wife, as the decree nisi had not been perfected into a decree absolute.

[7] There was no suggestion that this fact was hidden or unknown; rather, it appeared that the requirement to finalise the divorce was overlooked.

[8] In April 2025, the Petitioner-Husband filed an application in this court ("this Application") for an order to backdate the Decree Absolute to 8 August 2000, effectively seeking to retrospectively validate the second marriage and regularise the status of the children born thereafter.

The Issue

[9] The sole issue for determination was whether this court had the authority to backdate the Decree Absolute.

[10] The sub-issues that arose were: (a) whether the failure to make the decree nisi absolute amounted to a procedural or technical lapse that could be rectified under the slip rule, thereby permitting a retrospective amendment to the date of the decree absolute; and (b) the legal ramifications of not converting the decree nisi into a decree absolute.

[11] This Application was dismissed for the following reasons.

Contentions, Evaluation And Findings

Whether Failure To Make The Decree Nisi Absolute Was Merely A Technical Error

[12] The Petitioner-Husband contended that the failure to make the decree nisi absolute earlier was a mere technical oversight, and that this court has the inherent jurisdiction or discretionary powers to backdate the Decree Absolute to reflect the true intention of the Petitioners to have dissolved the marriage in 2000.

[13] The Petitioner-Husband attempted to deflect responsibility for the failure to obtain the decree absolute by attributing the omission to