CORAM
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KARIBI-WHYTE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KAWU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BELGORE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ESO – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
JOSEPH OSEMWEGIE IDEHEN & ORS APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The deceased testator I.J. Idehen made a will giving a large part of his personal and real property to his first son who died before him; upon his death his other brothers challenged the will when judgment was delivered both plaintiffs and defendants appealed.
HELD
The Supreme Court held that the will of the testator was valid and the execution was in line with 53(1) or the wills law.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the will (valid or invalid) was actually that of the testator or whether it was something founded up after his death as has been suggested in part by the plaintiffs.(ii) Whether the will was executed in compliance with the wills law and whether it is valid.(iii) Whether the properties devised in clause II of the will have passed on to the sons of Humphrey by virtue of S.28 of the wills Law
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHEN A COURT OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT INTERFERE
“A court of appeal should not interfere in a finding of fact which is supported by valid and admissible evidence”. – Per S.Kawu JSC
CASES CITED
(i) Thompson Oke vs. Solomon Oke & Anor (1974) 1 ALL NLR 440.(ii) Olowu vs. Olowu (1985) 2 NWLR Part 13 P.72(iii) Balogun vs. Agboola (1974) 10 SC 11.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Wills Law