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!

WHERE DISPUTE AS TO A WILL, BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THOSE WHO ARE SEEKING TO PROPOUND IT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The Appellants have argued in their brief that the burden of proof rested on the Respondents who are the persons propounding the Will before it would shift to them. This is correct as it accords with the position of the law. The apex court in Okelola v. Boyle (1998) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.539) 533 at 547-549 per Ogundare, JSC (as he then was) quoted with approval the decision in Johnson & Anor v. Maja & Ors (1951) 13 WACA 290 at 292 as follows: “Where there is a dispute as to a Will, those who propound it must clearly show by evidence that prima facie, all is in order: that is to say, that the testator had the necessary mental capacity, and was a free agent. Once they have satisfied the court, prima facie, 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”.

— J.I. Okoro, JCA. Mudasiru & Ors. v Abdullahi & Ors. (2011) – CA/L/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

Will

ISSUES RAISED ON PROBATE PROCEEDING NOT TOUCHING ON PROBATE SHOULD – BURDEN

With the plaintiff having introduced new issues over and above the initial challenge on the will Exhibit B, her claim was no longer within the ambit of the general rule as laid down in the case of Adebajo v Adebajo supra, wherein the onus of proof in a probate action lies on the proponents of the will. The general rule principle enunciated herein is in my humble view subject however to a situational circumstance as it is with the case at hand which serves as an exception thereof.

— C.B. Ogunbiyi, JCA. Ize-Iyamu v Alonge & Ors. (2007) – CA/L/184/03

Was this dictum helpful?

TESTATOR MUST BE OF SOUND DISPOSING MIND – CRITERIA

Cockburn CJ in Banks v Goodfellow LR 5 QB 549 at 565: “It is essential to the exercise of such a power that a testator shall understand the nature of the act and its effects; shall understand the extent of the property of which he is disposing; shall be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he ought to give effect; and with a view to the latter object, that no disorder of the mind shall poison his affections, pervert his sense of right or prevent the exercise of his natural faculties that no insane delusion shall influence his will in disposing of his property and bring about a disposal of which, if the mind had been sound, would not have been made.”

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE WILL IS CHALLENGED, PROPOUNDER IS SHOW REGULARITY

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 NWLR (pt 715) 304, Okelola v. Boyle (1998) 2 NWLR (pt 539) 533; Amu v. Amu (2007) 7 NWLR (pt 663) L64, Adebayo v. Adebojo (1973) Alf N.L.R.297 and Johnson & Anor. V. Maja & Ors. 13 WACA 290.

— A.G. Mshelia, JCA. Mudasiru & Ors. v Abdullahi & Ors. (2011) – CA/L/58/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

A BENEFICIARY CAN CHOOSE TO RENOUNCE GIFT GIVEN IN A WILL

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

ONCE PROPOUNDER OF WILL PROVES REGULARITY, ONUS MOVES TO CHALLENGER

In Adam vs. Ikhano (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 89) 478 it was held that where there is a dispute as to the validity of a WILL, the primary onus of proof is on the party who propounds it to show clearly that prima facie it is duly executed. Once the primary onus is discharged, the secondary onus of proof of the allegation that the WILL is not properly executed or that it is tainted with fraud or forgery shifts unto the party challenging its proper execution to substantiate his allegations. See also Omorhirhi vs. Enatevwere (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 476 and Okoli vs. 1st Bank (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 46) 1052.

Was this dictum helpful?

BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF WILL IS ON THE PROPOUNDER

It is settled, that the burden of proof of the genuiness and authenticity of a WILL lies on the party propounding it. Where there is a dispute as to a WILL, as in this case, the person who propounds it must clearly show by evidence that prima facie everything 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. Having done that the burden is then cast upon the party who attacked the WILL to substantiate by evidence the allegation he made. This principle of law was very clearly enunciated in the case of Bafunke Johnson & ors vs. Akinola Maja & ors 13 WACA 290,291 – 292 cited supra by Appellants’ counsel where the court held as follows:- “The onus of proof shifts. In the first stage where there is a dispute as to a WILL those who profound it must clearly show by evidence that prima facie all is in order. Thereafter the burden is cast upon those who attacked the WILL and they are required to substantiate by evidence the allegations they have made. The decision must ultimately depend upon a consideration (having regard to the shifting burden of proof), of the value of all the evidence adduced by both parties.” See also Adebajo vs. Adebajo supra, Okelola v. Boyle supra and Egharevba vs. Oruonghae (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 318, and Amu v. Amu (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 663) 170 -171, 174.

— A.G. Mshelia, JCA. Ize-Iyamu v Alonge & Ors. (2007) – CA/L/184/03

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.