Whether the alteration were made before or after the will was executed in this particular case, the truth is that it (ie., the alterations) complied with section 14 of the Wills Law of Lagos state (supra) Since the Testator initialed all alterations.
— J.I. Okoro, JCA. Mudasiru & Ors. v Abdullahi & Ors. (2011) – CA/L/58/2010
SHARE ON
I think it is trite that where a Testator fails to nominate a person to be his executor, any person who upon the terms of the Will has been appointed to perform the essential duties of an executor, is called as executor according to the tenor of the Will and is entitled to a grant of probate. Also where it can be implied from the Will that a person appointed a trustee is required, for instance to pay the debts of the testator, take charge of his funeral and/or generally, administer the Will, though not expressly appointed an Executor, he can be implied to be so endowed. A reasonable construction of a Will can confirm if indeed any person(s) have been appointed to perform the essential duties of an executor. This will be a clear indication that the duties which a person is asked to perform, in the absence of his being expressly named in the Will as Executor, is the determinant of his status as an executor according to tenor. See Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition vol.17; Dr. Kole Abayomi SAN: Wills Law and Practice (2004) P. 129.
— J.I. Okoro, JCA. Mudasiru & Ors. v Abdullahi & Ors. (2011) – CA/L/58/2010
Amu v Amu (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt.663) 164. At page 164, 170-171, and 174 of the report Aderemi J.C.A (as he then was) said as follows:- “Where there is a dispute as to a will, those who propounded it must clearly show by evidence that, prima facie, all is in order, that is to say that there has been due execution and that the testator had the necessary mental capacity, and was a free agent. Once they have satisfied the court, prima facie, as to these matters, it seems to me that the burden is then cast upon those who attack the will and that they are required to substantiate by evidence the allegation they have made as to lack of capacity, undue influence, and so forth. That it is clear to me, must be their responsibility and nothing can relieve them of it; it is not only a rule of common sense but a rule of law, as appears from numerous authorities.”
Rimmer J summed up the matter as follows in Goode, Carapeto v Goode (2002) WTLR 801 at 841: “The burden of proving that a testator knew and approved of the contents of his will lies on the party propounding the will. In the ordinary course, the burden will be discharged by proving the due execution of the will and that the testator had testamentary capacity. Where, however, the will was prepared in circumstances exciting suspicion something more may be required from those propounding the will by way of proof of knowledge and approval of its contents. A relevant standard of proof is, however, simply by reference to that balance of probability.”
It is incumbent on the propounder of a will once the will is being challenged to establish its regularity. But once the court is satisfied prima facie of the regularity of the will, the burden of proof shifts to the party challenging the will – see Eyo v. Inyang (2001) 8 N.W.L.R. (pt. 715) 304, Okelola vs Boyle (1998) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt. 539) 533. Amu vs. Amu (2007) 7 N.W.L.R. (pt. 663) 164.
— R.C. Agbo, JCA. Ize-Iyamu v Alonge & Ors. (2007) – CA/L/184/03
Besides, it is well settled and recognized principle of law that a beneficiary under a will can renounce property devised or bequeathed to him by the will.
— S. Galadima, JCA. Jadesimi & Anor. v. Egbe (2003)
Adebajo v Adebajo (1973) All NLR 297 their Lordships of the apex court per Elias CJN took great care to define quite clearly where the Onus of proof lies in a probate action. At page 312 his Lordship held and laid the onus: “Squarely on the proponents of the will and examined their evidence and their witnesses with jealous scrutiny in order to ensure that all allegations about suspicious circumstances are considered in an attempt to clear the conscience of the court. It was only after satisfying himself that the defence has discharged this onus that the learned Chief Justice returned to examine the challenger’s evidence which he found insufficient to sustain the claim that the deceased did not at the time of making the will know and approve its contents.”
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry