OBUSEZ v. OBUSEZ (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.
1043) 430; (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 374) 227
EDWARD OBUSEZ
V.
ADEMOLA
GIWA
FACTS
The
1st respondent (Mrs. Sylvia Teckia Obusez) and the deceased
(Cornelius Paul Obusez) got married under the Marriage Act on the 8th
of July, 1972, they were both from Delta State. The union produced five (5)
children. Though, their relationship was not smooth as a couple.
On
29/5/88, Mr. Cornelius Paul Obusez was assassinated and he died intestate
(without a Will) while residing at No. 17 Obokun Street, Ilupeju, Lagos. The 1st
respondent was charged along with other persons for the murder of her husband.
She was discharged.
The
deceased was survived by the 1st respondent, his five children and
the appellants, who are his full brothers. The 1st appellant was in
fact, his twin brother, and the deceased was buried in his twin brother’s
personal residence. During his lifetime in 1977, the deceased took out a life
insurance policy naming the 1st respondent and his two children who
were born in that time as beneficiaries.
After
his death, the respondents instituted an action at the Ikeja High Court, Lagos
praying the court that she (the 1st respondent), together with her
five children were the only persons entitled to the estate of the deceased and
an order that grant of letters of administration be issued to her and a friend
of the deceased (the 2nd respondent). The appellants in response,
filed a counter-claim in which they claimed that they were the only persons
entitled to administer the estate of the deceased, and an order that the grant
of letters of administration be issued to the appellants.
The
trial court granted the prayers of the 1st respondent and held that
under Nigeria’s law of succession to the estate of Nigerians who contract
marriages under the Marriage Act, the 1st respondent and her
children were the only persons entitled to the estate of the deceased, and that
as beneficiaries of the estate, they were entitled to a grant of letters of
administration to administer the estate. The trial court further held that it
was proper and lawful that the 2nd respondent be appointed a
co-administrator with the 1st respondent as all the children were
minors. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the counter claim. On appeal to
the Court of Appeal by the appellants, the decision of the trial court was
affirmed.
Aggrieved
by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants further appealed to the
Supreme Court.
HELD
On distribution of estate of deceased
married under Marriage Act and who died intestate – The Supreme Court stated that by virtue of section 49(5) of
the Administration of Estates Law, Lagos, where any person who is subject to
customary law contracts a marriage in accordance with the provisions of the
Marriage Act and such person dies intestate leaving a widow or husband or any
issue of such marriage, any property which the intestate might have disposed by
Will shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Law,
notwithstanding any customary law to the contrary.
On Law applicable to succession to
estate of the deceased married under Marriage Act and who died intestate in
Lagos State – The Supreme Court
stated that in respect of the succession to the real and personal estate of a
person married under the Marriage Act and who dies intestate in Lagos, section
49(5) of the Administration of Estates Law of Lagos State is the applicable law
and it does not matter whether section 36(1) of the Marriage Act which was
applicable to the former Colony of Lagos had been repealed or not. However,
both the Law and Act stated above enact that in the event of a spouse married
under the Act dying intestate and being survived by his spouse and children,
the surviving spouse shall succeed to two thirds (2/3)
thereof and this makes the spouse a beneficiary of the estate and a qualified
person to apply for Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased
spouse.
On whether Items 60 and 67 of the
Exclusive Legislative List, 1979 Constitution cover cases of succession to and
administration of estate of intestate – The
Supreme Court stated that by Items 60 and 67 (which are Items 61 and 68 of the
Exclusive Legislative List, 1999 Constitution). Item 60 on the Exclusive
Legislative List pertains and is limited to the formation, annulment and
dissolution of marriages. It cannot be expanded to cover cases of succession
to, distribution and administration of the estate of an intestate. Also, Item
67 of the list cannot be construed to include matters beyond those specifically
mentioned in Item 60.
On whether intestate succession
determined by place of burial of the deceased or by a life policy made inter vivos by the deceased – The Supreme Court stated that the succession to the property
of a person who died intestate is not determined by the place of burial of the
deceased or by a life policy made inter
vivos by the deceased.
The Supreme Court held that the appeal fails and was therefore dismissed and the
decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Follow @wingrassnews
No comments:
Post a Comment