Background
On 2019-12-06 Mr. Osadolor Olaye, eldest son of the late Madam Airhunmwunde Aghaleladia, sued his sister Mrs. Dorothy Olaye and Mr. Egbobamwonyi Ovensenri (executors of the deceased’s 2008 will) alongside the Probate Registrar of the Edo State High Court. He sought declarations invalidating his mother’s purported will dated 10 March 2008, alleging fraud, duress and non-compliance with statutory formalities, and claiming exclusive inheritance of the family home at No. 1 Osaretin Street under Benin native law and custom. The defendants counter-claimed for a declaration of the will’s validity, litigation costs and an injunction restraining the claimant from interfering with the property bequeathed to the 1st defendant.
Issues
- Whether the claimant proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the will was tainted by fraud, forgery or duress so as to invalidate it;
- Whether the will was properly executed in compliance with the Wills Law of Edo State and not contrary to Benin customary law of inheritance;
- Whether the counter-claimants proved their right to relief on the preponderance of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
- A will is valid if written, signed by the testator (or by direction), acknowledged in the presence of at least two witnesses who attest and subscribe it in the testator’s presence (Wills Law, Cap. 172 Bendel State 1976).
- Allegations of fraud or forgery in a civil proceeding must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (Evidence Act s.135).
- Native Law and Custom, being a factual issue, must be proved by the party alleging it unless judicially noticed (Evidence Act s.14).
- Official documents and certified copies enjoy presumptions of genuineness and regularity (Evidence Act ss.146, 168).
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The claimant’s evidence of duress and forgery was speculative and failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the thumb impression or signature was not genuine. No forensic or law-enforcement investigation was undertaken.
- The defendants adduced uncontradicted testimony of the drafting lawyer (DW2) who took instructions from the testatrix of sound mind, read and interpreted the will in Edo language, and witnessed its execution alongside two attesting witnesses.
- No credible evidence was led to establish a Benin custom classifying a woman’s residence as exclusive family “igiogbe” inherited solely by the eldest son. The claimant failed to prove the alleged customary rule.
- Exhibit B (certified copy of the will) was lodged and read by the Probate Registrar; it enjoyed statutory presumptions of validity and regularity.
Conclusion
The claimant’s challenge to the will on grounds of fraud, duress, non-compliance and customary entitlement was rejected. His claim was dismissed. Conversely, the 1st and 2nd defendants succeeded on their counter-claim, having proved the will’s validity and proper execution. The court granted:
- A declaration that the 2008 will is valid, properly executed and not contrary to Benin customary inheritance law;
- Payment of ₦500,000 for litigation costs in favor of the 1st and 2nd defendants;
- A perpetual injunction restraining the claimant and his agents from trespassing or interfering with the property (one room and store) bequeathed under the will.
Significance
This decision clarifies that women of Benin descent may freely dispose of their property by will without customary limitations on their residence. It underscores the strict burden of proving fraud or forgery in wills and affirms statutory presumptions of regularity for certified probate documents. The judgment guides future inheritance disputes under the Wills Law and Benin native law.