NONYELU UGOLO v. CHIZOBA N. ODIAMA
(2019)LCN/12581(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 25th day of January, 2019
CA/E/478/2008
RATIO
INHERITANCE: WHERE THE DECEASED IS MARRIED UNDER THE ACT
“It is the law through the locus classicus of COLE V COLE (1898) NLR, 15 and other plethora of Judicial authorities in Nigeria that the distribution of the estate of an intestate man or woman is governed by the English laws, where the deceased instate got married under the Act. The law is that even if a couple got married under native law and custom, once they embrace Christianity and subsequently marry under the Act, vide celebration of marriage in a statutorily recognized church, the earlier traditional marriage automatically gives way for the later marriage under the act.” PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
CUSTOMARY LAW: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEMALE CHILD INHERITANCE
“In 2008, this Honourable Court per my learned brother Denton-West, JCA, as he then was, in the case of ASIKA VS ATUANYA voided the validity of Onitsha customary law to the extent of its being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Nigeria declared as illegal and unlawful, any discrimination against female child inheritance whether married or single. See the recondite unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of justices in the case of UKEJE VS UKEJE (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1418) 384.” PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
ADMINISTRATION: APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR
“Letters of Administration can be defined as a formal document issued by probate Courtappointing one as an administrator of an estate. See Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, page 905…To my mind, the appointment of an Administrator to manage a deceased’s estate is a position of trust in that the trustee renders account of his stewardship to the other beneficiaries.” PER ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
NONYELU UGOLO – Appellant(s)
AND
CHIZOBA N. ODIAMA – Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Anambra State, sitting at Onitsha Judicial Division which was delivered by J.C.O. Emekwue, J. on the 30th day of October, 2006.
The appellant on record set the ball of the instant litigation rolling from the trial Court since the year, 2002. In his 14 paragraphs Amended Statement of claim dated 10th May, 2002, the Appellant, as plaintiff before the trial Court claimed against the Respondent and another, jointly and severally as follows:-
(i) A declaration that by the custom of Onitsha people, the Plaintiff is entitled to succeed, inherit and manage the properties numbers 11 and 21 respectively of St. John Cross Onitsha or any other landed property of Late S.N. Ugolo exclusive of the defendants.
(ii) An order restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or privies from the continuing acts meddling with the Plaintiff’s right to manage, administer and control, affairs in properties numbers 11 and 21 St. John’s cross, Onitsha.
(iii) An order directing the respondents to pay over to the Plaintiff with effect from 1st March, 1998, all rents collected and accruing from numbers 11 and 21 St. John’s cross, up to date of Judgment in this suit.
(iv) A declaration that by virtue of letters of administration dated 13/4/17 and tendered as Exhibit ‘A’ in this proceedings, the plaintiff is the only person entitled to the management, administration and control of properties known as numbers 11 and 21 St. John’s cross, Onitsha.
The respondents debunked the claim of the appellant at the trial Court vide 32 paragraphs Further Amended Statement of Defence and Further Amended counter-claim dated 28th May, 2002. In the said further amended statement of Defence and counter claim, the respondents counter claimed against the Appellant as follows:-
a) A declaration that the purported appropriation, allocation and distribution by the plaintiff of Nos. 11 and 21 St. John’s Cross, Onitsha, to himself as sole heir is invalid, null and void.
b)(i) An order of Court distributing the leasehold namely plot 3 block 25 now known and called No. 11 St. John’s cross, Onitsha and plot 14 Block 17, known and called No. 21 St. John’s cross, Onitsha amongst the five children of Simon Nnaife Ugolo (deceased) forthwith on equal shares.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:-
(ii) An order of Court appointing the Assistant Chief Registrar of the High Court of Onitsha the official Receiver/Manager of the leasehold known and called Nos. 11 and 21 St. John’s cross, Onitsha, pending the full and final distribution of the estate amongst the five children of Simon Naife Ugolo (deceased) by the Court.
(c)(i) An order that the purported letter of Administration dated 13/4/73 as pleaded in paragraph 13(a) of the Amended Statement of claim is invalid, non-existent and otiose.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:-
(ii)An order that the purported administration pursuant to Letters of Administration as pleaded in paragraph 13(a) of the Amended Statement of Claim is one which is completed.
(iii) An order for revocation of the purported Letters of Administration incorporated in the Amended Statement of claim on the 20th of May, 2002 And/or Removal of the Plaintiff as such administrator inter alia for breach of trust and in the overriding interest of the beneficiaries and the estate.
(d) An order of account of all the money accruing from Nos. 11 and 21 St. John’s cross, Onitsha in the hand of the Plaintiff.
Pleadings were duly exchanged by the parties and trial commenced in the suit on 23/6/2003 and closed on 1/8/2008 when judgment was reserved after final address of counsel. The learned trial judge delivered judgment in the suit on 30/10/2006, wherein he dismissed the Plaintiff/appellant’s claim in its entirety and granted the Defendants/Respondent’s first relief of the counter-claim as the counterclaim succeeded in part.
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial judge filed a notice of appeal dated 29/2/2007 which was subsequently amended vide Amended Notice of Appeal dated 25th January, and filed on 29th January, 2008 which was refiled at the Court of Appeal as Amended Notice of Appeal on 31/5/2016.
The record of Appeal was transmitted to Court Appeal on 30th June, 2014. In line with the rules of this Honourable Court, the parties in this appeal have filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument. The appellant’s brief of argument dated 18/8/2014, filed on 19/8/2014 and the Reply brief dated 12/6/17 and filed on the same day, were settled by Victor S. Okonkwo, Esq., while the respondent?s brief of argument dated and filed on 4/11/2016 was settled by Chudi Obieze, Esq.
In his brief of argument, the appellant formulated and argued three (3) issues for determination. The said appellant’s issues read thus:-
a. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE OF DISTRIBUTION 1670, SECTION 36 OF MARRIAGE ACT CAP 115 LAWS OF FEDERATION OF THE CUSTOMARY LAWS OF ONITSHA PEOPLE IN ANAMBRA STATE, IS THE APPLICABLE (SIC) FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SIMON N. UGOLO WHO DIED INTESTATE IN 1992.
b. WHETHER THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDATION OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION DATED 13/4/73 (EXHIBIT ‘B’ AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 30/10/06, ENTITLED THE APPELLANT TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SIMON N. UGOLO TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE RESPONDENTS.
c. WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION DATED 13/4/73 (EXHIBIT ‘B’) THE RESPONDENT’S CONTINUED STAY IN AND MANAGEMENT OF PARTS OF THE ESTATE OF LATE SIMON N. UGOLO AMOUNTED TO INTERMEDDLING WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE APPELLANT OVER THE ESTATE?.
On the other hand, the respondent through her counsel formulated two (2) issues for determination of the appeal. The said respondent’s issues read thus:-
1) Whether the fact that, the Appellant holds a Letter of Administration of the intestate estate of Simon Nnaife Ugolo confers on the Appellant, the right to be the sole heir to the estate?
2) Was the trial Court in declaring the appropriation, allocation and distribution by the Appellant, of Nos. 11 and 21 St. John’s Cross, Onitsha, to himself as sole invalid, null and void.?
For the purpose of determining the real issue in controversy in this family dispute, I have the inclination to adopt the appellant’s formulated issues which I consider apt and germane to the resolution and settlement of the lingering dispute.
For ease of reference, I want to note that my adoption of the appellant?s raised or formulated issues does not foreclose the contentions of the respondents with due respect to the two issues raised by learned counsel for the respondent in his brief of argument.
APPELLANT?S ARGUMENT ON ISSUE 1.
The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief of argument contended that neither the provisions of statute of Distribution 1670 nor Section 36 of Marriage Act, Cap 115 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 is applicable for the distribution of the estate of Late Simon N. Ugolo who died intestate in 1972. The counsel emphasized that the relevant law that regulates the distribution of estate as at the date of the judgment of the case that gave rise to the appeal herein, was the Administration and succession) Estate of Deceased persons) Law which became effective in Anambra State on 31st December, 1986 (about sixteen years after the death of Late S.N. Ugolo) and which law was retained as Chapter 4 of the Revised laws of Anambra State 1991. He referred to the cases of DANIEL ADEOYE VS THE STATE (1999) 6 NWLR PT. 605, PAGE 74 AT 92, KALE VS COKER (1982) 12 SC 252 AND BIAMERI VS FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK (2002) FWLR PT. 721 AT PAGE 1858.
The Appellant’s counsel further contended that Section 36 of the Marriage Act as a guiding legislation only made reference to the provisions of the law of England relating to the distribution of personal estate of intestate, and not specifically on any such law of England. He emphasized that before the commencement of Administration and succession (Estate of deceased (person) in the Anambra State on 31st December, 1981, the law guiding the distribution of estate of an intestate person was specifically statute of distribution 1670 which was an English law of general application by 1900 as applicable to Anambra State. He stated that by the repeal of the received English Law (the statute of distribution 1670) through Section 169 of the Administration and Succession (Estate of deceased person) Cap 4 Laws of Anambra State 1991, the said law ceased to exist in Anambra State and so Section 36(1) of the Marriage Act Cap 115 laws of the Federation, 2004, ceased to have effect on persons, properties or other things whatsoever and cannot be made reference to, or applied in a judgment delivered by a Judge of High Court of Anambra State as at 30th October, 2006. He cited the authorities of NWAIGWE VS. OKERE (2008) 34 (PT2) NSCOR, PAGE 1325 AT 1363-1364, JOHN JATU VS PAM DUNG (1993) 3 NWLR PT.588 RATIO 1, LARINDE VS AFIKO, 6 WACA PAGE 108 AT 111 AND CHIGA VS UMARU (1986) 3 NWLR PT. 29 PAGE 460 AT 466.
Relying on the evidence of the Pw1 which according to him was neither challenged by the respondent in her pleading nor during cross-examination, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the custom of the Onitsha people is binding on Late Simon Ugolo. He cited the authorities of KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD VS JOHNSON K. EKISOLA (2010) 41 PT. 1 NSCQR PAGE 532 AT 598 SND NACENN VS BENAC (2011) 46 (PT.1) NSQR PAGE 247, while urging the Court of Appeal to hold that the distribution of the estate of late S.N. Ugolo shall be done in accordance with the customary law of Onitsha people.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
In his reaction to the Appellant’s argument in his formulated issue No. 1 the learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is immaterial that as at the time the judgment was given by the High Court Onitsha, the law applicable at the demise of S.N. Ugolo had been repealed prior to the judgment in the matter on 30th October, 2006. Contending further that the appellant cannot be relying on the Onitsha Native Law and Custom already pronounced by the Court of Appeal as being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience, the learned counsel for the respondent cited the authority of ASIKA VS ATUANYA (2008) 17 NWLR (PART 1117) P. 484 AT 518 PARA D-E PER DENTON-WEST, JCA.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Late Simon Nnaife Ugolo and Sophia Afulenu Ugolo, having been married under the Marriage Act, they had changed their personal law by choice, to the English law. In support of this contention, the learned counsel cited the authorities ofOLOWU V OLOWU (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 13) 372 AT 390 PARA C-D, COLE VS COLE (1898) NLR 15 AND AG. FEDERATION VS. SODE (1990) NWLR (PART 128) 500.
The learned counsel further contended that the cause of action in the instant matter arose in 1972 when S.N. Ugolo died. In this regard the learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the unassailability of the reasoning of the learned trial judge that by virtue of the marriage of S.N. Ugolo under the Act, his Christian way of life and Christian burial rites accorded to him, the English Statute of Distribution of 1670 was in force in Nigeria as at 1972 and consequently was applied to the estate of Simon Nnaife Ugolo. He urged the Court of Appeal to resolve the appellant’s issue ‘one’ against the appellant and resolve same in favour of the respondent.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUE 1
I took my time in reading the record of proceedings in this matter as transmitted from the High Court of Anambra State, in the Onitsha Judicial Division to the Court of Appeal. The position of the appellant at the trial Court was that the Onitsha native law and custom governs the mode of inheritance to the estate of Late S.N. Ugolo who died in 1972. It was upon the heavy reliance on the Onitsha native law and custom that the appellant sought for a declaration of the High Court that he owns everything his late father acquired in this world, to the exclusion of his siblings. On the other hand, the respondents (then) at the trial Court contended that the English law vide statute of distribution, 1670 dictates the mode of inheritance to the estate of Late S.N. Ugolo who died intestate in 1972.
On the face of record, the parties at the trial Court being the Appellant, the respondent and another are brother and sisters of full blood.
The parties, through their evidence at the trial Court were ad idem to the fact that their late parents were married under the Act. They also led evidence that did not contradict each other position that S.N. Ugolo, upon his demise was accorded full Christian burial rites in honour of his faith in the Anglican Church. It is the law through the locus classicus of COLE V COLE (1898) NLR, 15 and other plethora of Judicial authorities in Nigeria that the distribution of the estate of an intestate man or woman is governed by the English laws, where the deceased instate got married under the Act. The law is that even if a couple got married under native law and custom, once they embrace Christianity and subsequently marry under the Act, vide celebration of marriage in a statutorily recognized church, the earlier traditional marriage automatically gives way for the later marriage under the act.
On this note I cannot fault the resolution of the learned trial Judge that the distribution of the estate of Late S.N. Ugolo who died in 1972 was governed by the received English law – the statute of distribution, 1670 as applicable in Anambra State as at 1972 when the father of the parties in this appeal died. It is also my added opinion that in respect of succession to the real and personal estate of S.N. Ugolo who married under the Marriage Act and whose Christian life was not in doubt, even in his burial rites, the law that governed his estate was that of the English statute of Distribution of 1670. It does not matter whether Section 36(1) of the Marriage Act Cap. 115, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (1958) which was applicable to the former colony of Lagos as was applicable law in Anambra State had been repealed or not. In this regard, therefore, my answer to the question raised by the appellant’s issue one is emphatically in support of the position of the learned trial Judge in his judgment of 30th October, 2006. This issue is hereby resolved against the appellant in favour of the respondent.
In consideration of the whole circumstances of this case vis-a-vis the argument of counsel, I resolve this issue against the appellant.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS ON ISSUES NOS 2 &3
I will consider the Appellant’s issues 2 and 3 together for ease of reference and clarity, I want to reproduce the said issues as follows:
ISSUE 2
Whether the existence and validation of letters of Administration of letters of Administration dated 13/4/73 (Exhibit ‘B’) as per the judgment of the trial Court dated 30/10/06 entitled the appellant to the administration of the estate of late Simon N. Ugolo to the exclusion of the Respondent.
Whether in view of the existence of the letters of Administration dated 13/4/73 (Exhibit ‘B’) the Respondent’s continued stay in and management of parts of the estate of Late Simon N. Ugolo amounted to intermeddling with the rights of the Appellant over the estate.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT
It was the contention of the Appellant’s counsel pursuant to the validity of Exhibit B, that the appellant is entitled to manage the estate of Late S.N. Ugolo to the exclusion of all the other children of the deceased. He contended that the said Exhibit B was tendered and admitted in evidence on the course of trial without any objection by the respondents at the trial. He cited the case of OKWUEZE VS EJIOFOR (2001) FWLR (PART 48) PAGE 1277. Learned trial judge acknowledged the validity of Exhibit B in the passage of his judgment and subsequently, postulated that all the children S.N. Ugolo (deceased) are entitled to share in the distribution of the estate of the said S.N. Ugolo. He therefore argued that the judgment of the trial Court did not only lead to miscarriage of justice, but incapable of being enforced. He cited the cases of WOLUCHEM VS WOKAMA (1974) 3SC PAGE 153, KALIO & ORA VS. DANIEL KALIO (1975) 2 SC PAGE 15 AT 17-19 AND ALHAJI AGBAJE & ORS VS. CHIEF SALAMI AGBOLUAJE (SUIT No. SC/236/67). He contended that the Court of Appeal has the power to correct the errors in the Judgment of the Lower Court and diffuse the erroneous presumption of the respondent that she or other persons are entitled to the management or administration of any part of the estate of Late Simon N. Ugolo. He cited the case of AKAD INDUSTRIES LTD VS. OLUBODE (2004) 4 NWLR PART 802 PAGE 1 AT 13, RATIO 10.
It was the further contention of the appellant’s counsel that there is no relief or prayer in the defendants/respondent’s further Amended counter-claim particularly at pages 10 and 11 of the record where the respondent counter-claimed to be allowed or be in possession and control of the property at No. 11 St John?s Cross Onitsha. He submitted that the primary duty of Courts is to pronounce or adjudicate on matters submitted to the Court for consideration. He cited the cases of THOMAS V. OLUFOSOYE (1986) (PART 18) PAGE 669 RATION 8, NWAGA VS. REGISTERED TRUSTEES RECREATION CLUB (2004) FWLR (PART 190) PAGE 1360 RATIO 11, ADENIJI VS ADENIJI (1972) 4 SC. 10 AND ABBAS VS. SOLOMON (2001) FWLR (PART 67) PAGE 847 (RATIO 12).
It is the further submission of the appellant’s counsel that customary law of Onitsha people which exclude women from succession or distribution of the estate of an intestate was stated by an expert witness at page 32 of the record of appeal. On the whole the appellant’s counsel urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal based on his argument and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
In this response to the appellant’s issues 21 and 3, the learned counsel for the respondent challenged the competence of the said issues, contending that the issues do not emanate from Grounds 3 and 4 respectively of the amended notice and grounds of appeal. He urged the Court of Appeal to discountenance and strike out the two issues as being incompetent.
The learned respondent’s counsel argued that in the event of him being overruled by this Court, he has adopted his argument on his formulated issue one in reaction to the appellant’s issues 2 and 3.
He contended that the management and administration of the Estate by an administrator, is not synonymous with inheriting the Estate. He stated that the fact that the respondent did not object to the grant of the letters of Administration to her mother and her only brother, does not deprive her right of interest jointly, with others. He cited the authority of OKWUEZE VS. EJIOFO (2001) FWLR PART 48 AT 1277. In his conclusion, the learned respondent’s counsel urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favour of the respondent and to dismiss the appeal.
In his reply to the respondent’s brief of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire respondent’s brief of argument is a misconception of Law as to the issues raised in the appellant’s brief. He urged the Court of Appeal to discountenance same and uphold the submission of the appellant’s counsel.
RESOLUTION
I have critically perused the content of the appellant’s issues 2 and 3 contained in the Appellant’s brief of argument. I quite agree with the postulation of the learned counsel for the respondent that issues for determination must arise from the grounds of appeal. In this case, my evaluation of the appellant’s canvassed issues 2 and 3 reveals that there is no ground of incompetence on either of the issues under reference as both issues are respectively tied to valid grounds of appeal on record. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent, to the competence of appellant’s issues 2 and 3 misconceived and therefore discountenanced.
As I have said earlier in the passage of this judgment, I carefully studied the record of appeal, particularly the proceedings at the trial and the judgment of the lower Court.
Letters of Administration can be defined as a formal document issued by probate Courtappointing one as an administrator of an estate. See Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, page 905.
In a situation where there are many beneficiaries to the estate of a deceased intestate, it is illegal or unlawful for one or two beneficiaries to apply for the issuance of letters of Administration without the consent of others. It is on record that S.N. Ugolo died intestate in 1972 leaving behind him, a widow Mrs. Sophia Atolenu Ugolo and Five (5) children, including the appellant and the respondent. It is on record through evidence at the trial that the defendants including the respondent herein advised the appellant to apply for letters of Administration. The inference is that the appellant was nominated by his other siblings out of love to join their mother in the application for the said Letters of Administration which subsequently was granted.
To my mind, the appointment of an Administrator to manage a deceased’s estate is a position of trust in that the trustee renders account of his stewardship to the other beneficiaries. The mother of the parties died in 1996. On the face of record, upon the demise of the mother of the parties, the appellant was retained by his siblings as sole Administrator to the estate of S.N. Ugolo. The propelling wind of crisis that is wreaking havoc in the home of Late S.N. Ugolo and Sophia Atolenu Ugolo, which has triggered the lingering litigation, is inherent greed.
At Page 37 of the record of Appeal, the appellant testified that he never filed any inventory of his stewardship in the management of the estate because the estate is for him alone. He also testified under cross examination that he did not keep the proceeds from the properties in dispute in bank anywhere. It is worthy of note that the evidence led by the respondent over her contributed resources to the renovation of the property at St. John’s cross Onitsha and also to the training of the appellant overseas was not challenged by the appellant.
The fact that the appellant eats up the proceeds of the estate alone without remembering the beneficial interest of others is a ground that calls for agitation for nullification of the appellant’s authority as sole administrator to the estate, of S.N. Ugolo. Once crisis ensued over the management of the estate, resulting to clash of interest, the sole management of the estate by the appellant cannot stand.
The arguments contained in the appellant’s issues 2 and 3 attacked the decision of the High Court as being against the weight of evidence, calling on Court of Appeal to set aside the decision. In dealing with any prayer of counsel for the appellate Court to set aside a decision rendered by the trial Court, the appellate Court should be extremely careful as such jurisdiction of Court cannot be exercised for the fun of it, but upon valid legal reasons. An Appellate Court cannot fault the findings of fact of a trial Court when it does not find or see any fault. See IDEOZU VS OCHOMA(2006) 20 WRN 145 OR (2006) 4 NWLR (PT. 970) 364, OR (2006) ALL FWLR (PT. 308) 1183, particularly at 1209, paragraph A-B.
In the light of the foregoing, my respective answer to the question raised by the appellant’s issues 2 and 3 is in the negative.
On the whole, I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned trial Judge in his judgment. The application of Onitsha native law and custom which the appellant heavily relied upon to claim sole inheritance to the estate of S.N. Ugolo could only succeed in the primitive medieval age, but not in the present generation. In 2008, this Honourable Court per my learned brother Denton-West, JCA, as he then was, in the case of ASIKA VS ATUANYA voided the validity of Onitsha customary law to the extent of its being repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience. In 2014, the Supreme Court of Nigeria declared as illegal and unlawful, any discrimination against female child inheritance whether married or single. See the recondite unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of justices in the case of UKEJE VS UKEJE (2014) 11 NWLR (PT. 1418) 384.
In the final analysis, I hold that this appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of the High Court of Justice, Anambra State, sitting at Onitsha Judicial Division, delivered by J.C.D. EMEKWUE, J. on 30th October, 2006 in the Suit No. 0/792A/98: NONYELUM UGOLO VS. LILIAN NNEKA EYO & CHIZOBA N. ODIAWA is hereby affirmed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
MONICA BOLNA’AN DONGBAN-MENSEM, J.C.A.: I agree with the lead Judgment prepared by my brother ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JCA, dismissing this appeal as lacking in merit. Suffice it to say that this Court per DENTON-WEST JCA in ASIKA V ATUAYA (2008)17 NWLR (PT. 1117) P. 484 AT 518 voided the validity of the Onitsha Customary law to the extent of its repugnancy to natural justice, equity and good conscience in 2008.
In the unanimous decision of the eminent jurists of the Apex Court of Nigeria, in the case or UKEJE V UKEJE (2014) 11 NWLR (PT 1418 P 384 every discrimination against female child inheritance was declared illegal, unlawful and of no consequence.
The argument that Mr. Simon Nnage Ugolo (deceased) is bound by the custom of the Onitsha people long after his demise is ridiculous and without any legal anchor.
The evidence of the Appellant on the case of KOPEK CONSTRUCTION LTD V JOHNSON K. EKISOLA (2010)41 PT 1 NSCQR P532 @ 598 and NACENN V BENAC (2011) 46 PT 1 NSQR P247 is of no moment.
The deceased has obligation to none, only the living owe the deceased the duty to uplift the memory of the deceased and let them rest in peace.
The Appellant justified his failing to file any inventory nor give account of his stewardship of the management of the estate of his deceased parents by laying claim to sole ownership. He thereby repudiated the confidence reposed in him as a co-administrator with his late mother. Not being an only child, the Appellant’s claim to exclusive inheritance is indeed repugnant to equity and good conscience.
I too hereby dismiss this appeal and affirm the decision of the High Court of Anambra State delivered on the 30/10/06 by JCD Emekwue J of the Onitsha Judicial Division. I adopt the order as to cost made in the lead Judgment.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I was privileged to read in draft the judgment of my learned brother HON. JUSTICE ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JCA. I agree with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion therein that this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. I abide by the consequential orders made therein.
Appearances:
Victor Okonkwo, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Chudi Obieze, Esq.For Respondent(s)
