STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

CERTAINTIES IN A TRUST

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

I do agree the test for express trust is the existence of the three certainties set out by Chief Fagbohungbe, that is when a trust is created intentionally by the act of the settlor. There is also implied trust. This is where the legal title to property is in one person and the equitable right based on the beneficial enjoyment of the same property in another, a court of equity will from those circumstances infer an implied trust. Therefore an implied trust is a trust founded upon the unexpected, but presumed intention of the settlor. Under certainty of intention the words used must be examined to see whether the intention was to impose a trust upon the donee. The intention must also be genuine and not a stain as to where the settler did not intend the trust to be acted upon but entered into it for same ulterior motive such as deceiving creditors. Under certainty of objects, the trust must be for ascertainable beneficiaries.

– Nwodo, JCA. OLAM v. Intercontinental Bank (2009)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

trust

TYPES OF TRUST – WHERE IMPLIED TRUST WILL ARISE

To this end, there are Express Trusts, Implied or Resulting Trusts and Constructive Trusts. Express Trusts arise when the owner declares himself a trustee of the property for the benefit of another person or vests property in another person as trustee for the benefit of another person. Implied or Resulting Trust arise from the presumed intention of the owner, and the presumed intention arises by operation of law not by agreement of parties Constructive Trusts are trusts imposed by equity regardless of the intention of the owner of the property, where it will be unconscionable for the “apparent beneficial owner” or trustee to hold the property for his benefit- see Equity and Trust in Nigeria 2nd Ed. by J. O. Fabunmi. We are concerned with implied or resulting trusts, which may arise in the following circumstances – (i) Where an express trusts fails (ii) Where the beneficial interest under an express trust is not fully disposed of or exhausted. (iii) Where there is a purchase in the name of another or where a person makes a voluntary conveyance of his property to another.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS FOR EQUITABLE MORTGAGE – MORTGAGOR HOLDS LEGAL ESTATE IN TRUST

In considering the scope of the rights of an equitable mortgagee (not by way of charge) it should be borne in mind that the general rule is that foreclosure (and not sale) is the proper remedy of an equitable mortgagee (See James vs James (1873) L.R. 16 E. 153 citing with approval Pryce vs Bury at 154); and when an equitable mortgagee by deposit of title deeds and agreement to give a legal mortgage if called upon to do so takes foreclosure proceedings to enforce his security, the court usually decrees that the deposit operates as a mortgage and that in default of payments due under the mortgage the mortgagor is trustee of the legal estate for the mortgagee and that he must convey that estate to him.

– Idigbe JSC. Ogundiani v. Araba (1978)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN TRUST RELATIONSHIP ARISES

In its legal sense, “a trust” is the relationship, which arises wherever a person called the trustee is compelled in equity to hold property, whether real or personal, and whether by legal or equitable title, for the benefit of some persons (of whom he may be one and who are termed cestuis que trust) or for some object permitted by law, in such a way that the real benefit of the property accrues, not to the trustee but, to the beneficiaries or other object of the trust – Professor Keeton in Law of Trust, 9th Ed.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Huebner v Aeronautical Ind. Eng. (2017) – SC.198/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

RESULTING TRUST IS TRUST IMPLICIT IN THE CONDUCT OF PARTIES

Resulting Trust is a trust that can be readily deduced as being implicit in the conduct of parties but without express intent. Black’s Law Dictionary relies on the definition of a resulting trust as made out in the case of Lifemark Corp. vs. Newit Jx. App. 14 Dist, 655 SW. 2d 310, 316 as a’ “trust that arises where a person makes or causes to be made a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that person taking or holding that property should have the beneficial interest therein, unless inference is rebutted or the beneficial interest is otherwise effectively disposed of’.

— Pats-Acholonu, JSC. Ezennah v Atta (2004) – SC.226/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

STRANGER LIABLE AS CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTEE

If a stranger to a trust (a) receives and becomes chargeable with some part of the trust fund or (b) assists the trustees of a trust with knowledge of the facts in a dishonest design on the part of the trustees to misapply some part of a trust fund, he is liable as a constructive trustee (Barnes v Addy ((1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 at 251–252) per Lord Selborne LC).

— Buckley LJ. Belmont v Williams [1980] 1 ALL ER 393

Was this dictum helpful?

ONCE THERE IS A VALID CONTRACT FOR SALE, THE VENDOR BECOMES A TRUSTEE

Jessel, MR in Lysaght v. Edwards (1876) CH.D 499 stated the following on the doctrine of constructive trust:- “What is that doctrine? It is that the moment you have a valid contract for sale, the vendor becomes in equity a trustee for the purchase of the estate sold and the beneficial ownership passes to the purchaser, the vendor having a right to the purchase money, and a right to retain possession of the estate until the purchase money is paid in the absence of express contract as to the time of delivering possession … If anything happens to the estate between the time of sale and the time of completion of the purchase, it is at the risk of the purchaser; if it is a house to be sold and the house is burnt down, the purchaser looses the house. He must insure it himself if he wants to prevent such an accident. If it is a garden and river overflows its bank without any fault of the vendor, the garden will be ruined, but the loss will be the purchaser’s.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.