Position of the Law on the Capacity of Personal Representatives to Sue in Respect of the Estate of a Deceased

CASE TITLE: DIMKA v. KUPTONG & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62207(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 16TH MAY, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: WILLS AND PROBATE

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Wills and Probate.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (the trial Court), delivered on the 6th day of June, 2017 by Hon. Justice A. M. Talba. 

As Executor/Trustee of the late Estate of Filibus Suwa Dimka, the 1st Respondent (as Plaintiff) filed an Originating Summons at the trial Court against the 2nd Respondent (as Defendant), wherein he sought for the determination of the following question:

“Whether a child born in 2008 for whom the Testator acknowledged paternity, qualify and can be covered by the phrase “any other children that may be born to me” under Clause 11 of the Will and Testament of Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased).”

Upon an affirmative answer to the above question, the 1st Respondent then sought for the following reliefs, among others:

1. A DECLARATION that Miss Sokmwa Abigail Dimka, born on the 14th day of September 2008 for whom Mr. Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased), Testator of the Will and Testament of the Will dated October 20, 2002, acknowledged paternity before his demise in 2010, qualifies and can be covered by Clause 11 of the Will and testament of Filibus Suwa Dimka dated October 20, 2002.

2. A DECLARATION that Miss Sokmwa Abigail Dimka, born on the 14th day of September 2008, for whom Mr. Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased), Testator of the Will and Testament of the Will dated 20th day of October, 2002 acknowledged paternity before his demise in 2010, qualifies and can be covered by Clause 11 of the Will and Testament of Filibus Suwa Dimka dated 20th October, 2002 and should be entitled to share in the Estate of Mr. Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased) in accordance with the Will and Testament of Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased) dated 20th October 2002.

In reaction to the suit, the 2nd Respondent filed a counter affidavit and a written address wherein she argued that the spirit and letters of the Will of Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased) showed that he does not want to bequeath his estate to any other person except his son Gerald Kopji Dimka, who is specifically named in the Will. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge entered judgment for the 2nd Respondent and held that Sokmwa Abigail Dimka is not qualified and cannot be covered by the phrase “any other children that may be born to me” under Clause 11 of the Will and Testament of Mr. Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased).

The Appellant claiming to be the next friend of Sokmwa Abigail Dimka, appealed against the judgment of the trial Court after obtaining leave from the Court to appeal as an interested party.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the judgment of the trial Court ought to be set aside or amount to a nullity due to the non-joinder of the child whose rights and interests was the subject matter of the proceedings.

2. Whether the learned trial judge was right when he interpreted the phrase “any other children that may be born to me” under clause 11 of the WILL AND TESTAMENT of Filibus Suwa Dimka (Deceased), to exclude the Appellant, Sokmwa Abigail Dimka.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

  • ACTION- NECESSARY PARTY(IES): Who is a necessary party?
  • ACTION- JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Condition(s) for a party to be joined to an action
  • ACTION- CAPACITY TO SUE AND BE SUED: Position of the law on the capacity of personal representatives to sue in respect of the estate of a deceased
  • ACTION- NON-JOINDER OF PARTY(IES): Whether non-joinder of a party can by itself defeat an action
  • INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT- CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT(S)/INSTRUMENT(S): How unambiguous words of an instrument/document are to be interpreted
  • INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT- CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT(S)/INSTRUMENT(S): Cardinal rule of interpretation of instrument, document or agreement
  • INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE OF INTERPRETATION: Scope of application of ejusdem generis rule of interpretation
  • JUDGMENT AND ORDER- PERVERSE DECISION: Meaning of a perverse Decision or Judgment
  • WILLS AND PROBATE- WILL: Duty of Court in the construction of Wills

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol

lawpavilion

Recent Posts

Can a Court Order an Employer’s 10% Pension Contribution Without a Specific Claim?

CASE TITLE: RICHROCK MARITIME SECURITY & LOGISTICS LIMITED V. GAFAR LPELR-81805(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH MAY,…

1 hour ago

Whether The Mere Filing of a Counter Affidavit Automatically Makes a Suit Contentious

CASE TITLE: NIGERIAN NAVY & ORS v. OYEGHE (2025) LPELR-82068(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2025…

1 hour ago

Will Conviction for Conspiracy be Appropriate Where the Substantive Offence has Not Been Proved?

CASE TITLE:  UCHE v. STATE (2025) LPELR-82590(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2025 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW…

1 hour ago

Effect of a Written Statement on Oath Not Signed and Sworn to Before a Commissioner for Oaths

CASE TITLE: SUMAYE & ANOR v. MAITARKO & ANOR (2025) LPELR-82596(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH DECEMBER,…

2 hours ago

Price Control in Nigeria: Insights into the Price Control Act, 1977 and It’s Implications for Businesses and Consumers.

By Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi, SAN FCIArb. (U.K) Introduction Given the rising inflation and decreasing consumers’…

1 week ago

Abating a Nuisance Doesn’t Wipe out Your Liability

CASE TITLE: BIASE PLANTATION LTD v. IVERE LPELR-81076(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD JANUARY, 2025 JUSTICES: AMINA…

1 week ago