n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Olowu V. Olowu (1994) CLR 5(e) (CA)

Brief

  • Bini customary law of inheritance,
  • Yoruba customary law of inheritance,
  • Letters of administration,
  • Intestate estate

Facts

The father of the parties Adeyinka Ayinde Olowu died intestate in November, 17, 1960 leaving 11 children. He was a Yoruba man by birth but had naturalised as a Benin man before his death. The respondent was the eldest surviving son while the appellant was his immediate younger brother. The deceased left behind a large estate in respect of which the appellant and the respondent were granted letters of Administration in 1962. In February, 1973, the properties of the deceased were distributed among the children. No.4, Wire Lane, Benin City was the house where the deceased lived and died. The distribution of the estate of the deceased led to an action brought by some of the children against the appellant and the respondent as defendants in suit No. B/77/73. The case were fought up to the Supreme Court and the distribution of the estate as per "Exhibit A2" was endorsed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case is reported as Olowu v. Olowu (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.13) 372. Unfortunately, the distribution list endorsed by the Supreme Court did not specifically mention No.4 Wire Lane, the bone of Contention in the present case.

The appellant and the respondent lived in different floors of the house at No.4. Wire Lane, Benin City which the respondent was claiming exclusively as the first son of the deceased under Bini Customary Law. He gave evidence that as the first son of the deceased he was entitled to exclusive ownership of the house where the deceased lived and died. He also said that No.4. Wire Lane was the same as Premier Cinema and its premises given to him in the distribution list "Exhibit A2". The appellant's case was that as the respondent did not bury the deceased father in accordance with Bini Custom, he was not entitled to inherit No.4 Wire Lane exclusively.

The trial Judge reviewed the evidence given by the parties and awarded the disputed property to the respondent and ordered the appellant to vacate the house. The appellant was unhappy with this decision and appealed to this court.

Issues

Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding the house at No. 4 Wire...

Read More