PASTOR AKIN OLATUNJI v. MR.OLUWOLE AKINGBASOTE & ORS

CORAM

MOHAMMAD AMBI-USI DANJUMA  -JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

PASTOR AKIN OLATUNJI APPELLANTS

1. MR.OLUWOLE AKINGBASOTE

2. MR. ODUNMORAYO AKINGBESOTE

3. MR. OLUSOLA AKINGBASOTE (For themselves and on behalf of late Mr. Rufus Olatuji Akingbasote’s Family)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Upon the death of Late Mr. Rufus Olatunji Akingbasote, the Appellant who is the eldest child took away the title deeds to the properties and subsequently sold one of the properties. The Appellant claimed that as the head of the family, he did not need consent of the Respondents to deal with the family property.  The Respondents therefore instituted an action against the Appellants at the Ondo State High Court claiming that the properties comprising corporeal and incorporeal hereditaments being the properties of the deceased be shared into four equal parts in accordance with the ‘idi igi’ mode of succession to all the children, a declaration that the original title deeds of all the properties be surrendered and handed over to the Plaintiff’s family amongst other reliefs.

At the end of the trial the lower Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court the Appellant has appealed to this Court

HELD

Appeal Succeeds In Part

ISSUES

1.Whether the learned trial judge properly directed himself in law in holding that properties of Roakin Company Nig. Ltd (an incorporated company) devolve, in accordance with Idanre Customary practice, jointly on the children of late Rufus Olatunji Akingbasote (a director in the company) who died intestate when the company is still a going concern with a Board of Directors and has not been wound up.?

2.Whether or not Roakin Company Nig. Ltd, a company registered under the Company and Allied Matters Act is a distinct personality from its promoter or directors and as such not subject to Idanre customary practice. ?

Whether the judge properly directed himself in law when he held that the defendant, the eldest child of the family of late Rufus Olatunji Akingbasote, is not the head of the family and issued an injunction restraining him from further interference or meddling with the administration of the family properties, thereby occasioning a breach of the Appellant’s right under the native law and custom.3.?

4.Whether the learned trial judge did not err in law when he held that the applicable law to the distribution estate of an intestate is the Idi-igi system and not Ori  Ojori and thereby occasioned miscarriage of justice.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

FAMILY PROPERTY – THE FAMILY MUST BE CONSULTED IN RESPECT TO ANY IMPORTANT DEALING WITH FAMILY PROPERTY

“If there is going to be any important dealing with family property all the branches of the family must be consulted. See Otun v. Otun (supra)”.PER J. S. ABIRIYI, J.C.A

LEGAL PERSONALITY OF AN INCORPORATED COMPANY – AN INCORPORATED COMPANY HAS A DISTINCT PERSONALITY FROM THOSE WHO FORMED THE COMPANY

“An incorporated company is a creature of law clothed with independent legal personality from the moment of incorporation, distinct and separate from those who labored to give birth to it. It is capable of acquiring, holding and alienating property, both movable and immovable. If a company is wound up the assets of the company must first of all be identified and settled. Subsequently, the Court can then order the sharing of the remaining assets (if any) among the parties entitled thereto. See, Marina Nominees Ltd v. Federal Board of Inland Revenue (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt 20) 48 Wilt & Busch Ltd v. Goodwill & Trust Inv. Ltd (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt 874) 179 and Okafor v. Igwilo (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.527) 36 at 39”. PER J. S.ABIRIYI, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT