Tanrisi Legal

04/04/2026

*OKORO v. NCDC & ORS (2025) LPELR-80676(CA)*

*- Whether oral testimony is needed to resolve conflicting affidavits in fundamental rights actions*

_"The Appellant further argued that Exhibits C and NCDCI are sufficient enough to prove her case before the lower Court albeit, being conflicting evidence. I wonder why the Appellant then has an issue with the decision of the lower Court. The lower Court found the affidavits filed by the Appellant and the Respondents to be in conflict. The Court therefore proceeded to examine the Exhibits and upon careful consideration of same, the Court found that the Exhibits were not certified true copies of the documents and were both expert reports which would require expert opinion. However, basing its judgment on the lack of certification of the documents, the lower Court held that the Appellant had failed to prove her case and thus dismissed same. The decision of the lower Court is at par with the law. See Afribank vs. Adigun & Anor (2008) LPELR-3634 (CA) @ 20-22 paras. B where this Court held thus: "...That of course is the general position of the law settled in a plethora of authorities to the effect that conflict in affidavit evidence on material issue must be resolved by oral evidence and not glossed over. See FSB INT. BANK v. IMANO NIG. LTD (2000) 7 SCNJ 65, FIRST BANK PLC v. MAY MEDICAL (2001) 4 SCNJ 1. However, applications for enforcement of fundamental human rights are peculiar and special in nature. The application should ordinarily be decided on the supporting affidavit and counter-affidavit and if need be further affidavit alone. There is no contemplation of the parties calling oral evidence to resolve conflicts in the affidavit. The special procedure is to facilitate the speedy release of citizens whose rights are being infringed and in such a case time is of essence in the determination of whether or not the executive infringement of a citizen's fundamental human rights is lawful or not. The whole purpose of the procedure would be defeated if parties are allowed to call oral evidence to resolve none core questions of fact. Where there is conflicting affidavit evidence, the Court is entitled especially in cases of the special procedure for enforcement of fundamental Human Rights to discount the areas of conflict and turn to the contents of the exhibits attached to the affidavit filed by the parties. Where the party does not submit positive exhibit to prove his case, the burden of proof would not be discharged. See UPL v. I. K. MARTINS (2000) 2 SCNJ 224. In this case Exh. F dated 26th May (2000) attached to the Appellant's counter-affidavit showed that the Appellant reported a case of fraud allegedly perpetrated by their Branch Manager to the Police and listed the names of the customers with whom the Branch Manager allegedly connived. There is no direct evidence from the 1st Respondent to show that the Bank reported the 1st Respondent to the Police for the purpose of his being arrested or detained. Oral evidence must be led to resolve the conflict unless there is documentary evidence that can tilt the contradictory evidence. The proper approach is to refuse to prefer one deposition to the other. See EIMSKIP LTD. v. EXQUISITE INDUSTRIES (2003) 1 SCNJ 317." Per OGUNWUMIJU, JCA (as he then was)."_ Per MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, JCA (Pp 46 - 48 Paras B - F)

Judicial Authorities| Legal Articles| Ai Law| Legal Tech| NBA & BAR | Legal Commentaries| Public Affairs, et al.

11/02/2026

⚖️❓ DOES BEING NAMED A NEXT OF KIN AUTOMATICALLY GIVE A PERSON THE RIGHT TO INHERIT A DECEASED’S ESTATE OR EXCLUSIVELY ADMINISTER IT?

📘 VOLUME 67

🔎 CASE TITLE AND CITATION

DASHE v. DAVID & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81124 (CA)

⬇️Disputes over a deceased person’s estate often tear families apart, especially where death benefits are involved. This case clarifies a common misconception in Nigeria: that being named Next of Kin automatically confers inheritance rights or sole authority over a deceased’s estate.

📜 FACTS OF THE CASE

i. The Appellant, father of the deceased Nigerian Army officer who died in active service fighting Boko Haram in 2018, challenged the grant of Letters of Administration to the 1st Respondent, the deceased’s elder brother.

ii. The Appellant alleged that the 1st Respondent falsely represented to the Probate Registry of the Nasarawa State High Court that the deceased’s last place of abode was Nasarawa Eggon, thereby fraudulently securing Letters of Administration and converting the estate, including over ₦7 million death benefits, for personal use.

iii. The 1st Respondent maintained that the deceased resided with him in Nasarawa Eggon during NYSC and thereafter, was validly appointed as Next of Kin, and lawfully obtained the Letters of Administration to administer the estate for the family’s benefit.

iv. The High Court dismissed the Appellant’s claims. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.

❓ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

A. Whether the Appellant proved misrepresentation, fraud, or any vitiating circumstance sufficient to invalidate the grant of Letters of Administration.

B. Whether the lower court was correct in holding that the reliefs sought were based on allegations of fraud rather than improper administration of the estate.

C. Whether the lower court properly evaluated the evidence before it.

⚖️COURT’S DECISION

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court, holding that the Appellant failed to prove fraud or misrepresentation as required by law.

💭QUOTATIONS FROM JUDGMENT

“It is not the law that the position of a Next of Kin conferred on the 1st Respondent any right of inheritance, or with the sole right to apply and obtain Letter of Administration over the Estate of the deceased.”

“In law, being named a Next of Kin alone does not confer any such right for merely being the closest relative of the deceased, which is all that next of kin signifies in law.”

📖PRINCIPLE OF LAW

Being named a Next of Kin does not confer inheritance rights nor exclusive entitlement to apply for Letters of Administration. Allegations of fraud in estate administration must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, in line with the standard required for criminal allegations.

📌SIGNIFICANCE :

This decision corrects a widespread misunderstanding in estate practice and family disputes. It reinforces that Next of Kin status is largely administrative and informational, not proprietary, and that courts will not lightly set aside Letters of Administration without strict proof of fraud.

WhatsApp Group Invite

21/01/2026

WHEN A MARRIAGE BREAKS DOWN, WHO DECIDES THE FUTURE OF THE CHILD; AND ON WHAT BASIS? IS CUSTODY AUTOMATIC, OR DOES THE COURT EXERCISE DISCRETION GUIDED BY LAW AND THE CHILD’S WELFARE?

⚖️CASE TITLE AND CITATION

OKECHALU v. OKECHALU (2025) LPELR-81868(CA)

➡️Custody disputes often arise after the dissolution of marriage, with each parent asserting superior entitlement. This case addresses whether custody is a matter of right or one left to the sound discretion of the court, exercised in the best interest of the child

FACTS OF THE CASE

i. The marriage between the parties, celebrated on 22 April 2006, was dissolved by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 16 May 2022.

ii. The trial court granted custody of the only child of the marriage to the Respondent and ordered the Appellant to pay various sums for the child’s maintenance, including monthly upkeep, school fees, and accommodation, amounting cumulatively to ₦875,000 per annum.

iii. The Appellant was also granted unfettered access to the child. Dissatisfied, he appealed against the custody and maintenance orders.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting custody of the child to the Respondent.

2. Whether the trial court was right in awarding maintenance allowances against the Appellant.

3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant the Appellant custody during holidays or upon the child attaining the age of 16.

⚖️ COURT’S DECISION:

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part

While affirming the award of custody to the Respondent, the court set aside the award of accommodation against the Appellant and ordered that the child should spend alternative holidays with both parents.

💭 QUOTATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT

The Court reaffirmed that:

“The issue of custody of a child of a marriage is one within the discretion of the court, which discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously, with the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.”

⚖️PRINCIPLE OF LAW

The award of custody of a child of a marriage is entirely within the discretion of the court, and such discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously, guided primarily by the best interest and welfare of the child, not the convenience or entitlement of either parent.

17/01/2026

*MARANRO v. OYEGOKE (2022) LPELR-61108(SC)*

*-Whether proof by traditional evidence takes priority over other ways of establishing title*

_"Both parties in this appeal lay claim to the land in dispute by leading traditional evidence to show the geneology of the devolution of the land from their respective progenitors. By the authority of Sanusi Vs. Ameyogun (1992) 4 SCNJ 117 the proofs of title by adducing traditional evidence takes priority over and above other ways of establishing title, as traditional evidence usually go to roots as to how a claimant and his predecessor-in-title came upon the land."_ Per JOHN INYANG OKORO, JSC (Pp 34 - 35 Paras E - A)

16/01/2026

OKOEOMA v. STATE (2022) LPELR-58318(CA)*

*- Position of the law as to the evidence of a witness who died before cross-examination*

_"The position of the law on the evidence of a witness who died before cross-examination is that the evidence is legal but the weight to be attached to such evidence should depend on the circumstances of each case. See the case of OKWA v IWEREBOR & ORS (1965) LPELR-25565 (SC) AT 3-4 (B-D). In REX v DOOLIN: JEBB CC. 123 it was held that: Where a prosecution witness was taken seriously ill whilst under cross-examination, his evidence was taken into consideration, and the conviction based on it was held good. See also ONYENWE & ANOR v CHIEF ANAEJIONU (2014) LPELR - 22495 (CA). I am therefore in agreement that the lower Court ought not to have thrown it away."_ Per ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA (Pp 16 - 17 Paras E - B)

11/01/2026

NNAEMEKA v. I.N.E.C. (2026) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2024) 1 SC.

ELECTION PETITIONS:

On documents that must accompany an election petition:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the mandatory nature of documents that must accompany an election petition under the Electoral Act, 2022 as follows:

By virtue of Paragraph 4(5)(c) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2022, an election petition shall be accompanied by:

1. A list of witnesses the petitioner intends to call in proof of the petition;

2. Written statements on oath of the witnesses; and

3. Copies or a list of every document to be relied upon at the hearing of the petition.

Failure to comply with these requirements is fatal, as they are conditions precedent to the competence of an election petition.
(See page 58, paragraphs C–D)

10/01/2026

ALHAJI HASSAN BELLO & SONS LTD. & ANOR. vs. ZENITH BANK(2018)LPELR-43792(CA)

ISSUE:

INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT:

When interest on overdraft is chargeable.

PRINCIPLE:

"I have stated that in prove of her claims for the principal sum and the accrued interests, the respondent had also relied on bank statement of the 1st appellant. The law is that any bank which is claiming a sum of money on the basis of overall debit balance of a statement of account must adduce both documentary and oral evidence explaining clearly the entries therein particularly where as in the instant case the debt is constituted largely by interest charges to show how the overall debit balance was arrived. See HADYER TRADING MANUFACTURING LTD. V. TROPICAL COMMERCIAL BANK PLC (2013) LPELR 20294.

Also in BIEZAN EXCLUSIVE GUEST HOUSE LTD. V. UNION HOMES SAVINGS &
LOANS LTD. (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 246) 246 at 286 this Court has held that a statement of account is not sufficient explanation of debts and lodgments.

Therefore, evidence needs be adduced on its contents because interest charges and other charges are not liquidate, there should be a break down, an analysis of how much of the debt is interest to enable the Court appreciate what is before it without having to do private calculation,an exercise which the law disapproves.

In an earlier decision in the case of HIMMA MERCHANTS LTD. V. ALIYU (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 347) 667 at 676, the Supreme Court was emphatic in holding that the
best method of satisfying a Court about the existence of the ground for the award of interest is by adducing credible, sufficient and satisfactory evidence about it.

Thus, interest must be specifically pleaded and proved.

In the present case, there is no evidence to explain the basis upon which the interest was arrived at and in the absence of credible evidence justifying the claim, the Court is not entitled to act blindly by granting the interest as claimed.

Mindful of the trite position of the law that pleaded facts without evidence in amplification go to no issue, learned trial judge rightly found in my view that the
allegations of over charges was resolved in favour of the appellants.

Consequently, the Court subtracted the amount termed over charged from the entire claim and arrived at the outstanding credit balance of N19,548,869.82.

However, learned appellants' counsel further contended that the amount of N19,
548, 869.82 awarded as judgment sums still formed part of the unproven sums of N22, 995, 691.45. I have held elsewhere in this judgment that the 1st appellant's statement of account, Exhibit P1, 2 - 27 was merely dumped on the trial Court without relating the figures contained therein. In other words, PW1 through whom Exhibit P1, 2 - 27 was tendered did not bother to demonstrate the Exhibit. And the Court as an arbiter must not get into the arena and engage itself in doing a case for one party to the disadvantage of the other party." Per SHUAIBU, JCA.(Pp.17-20,Paras.E-A)

10/01/2026

LAGOS & ANOR v. JIBRIN & ORS

(2008) LPELR-4419(CA)

ISSUE

EVIDENCE -

CROSS-EXAMINATION -

Whether a witness summoned upon a subpoena duces tecum can be cross examined

PRINCIPLE
"Section 192 of the Evidence Act relied on by counsel, provides as follows-

"Any person, whether a party or not, in a cause may be summoned to produce a document without being summoned to give evidence, and if he cause such document to be produced in Court, the Court may dispense with his personal attendance"

Section 193 of the same Act, further provides as follows -

"A person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness".

The gist of the Respondents' contention on this Issue is that the application to tender the ballot boxes and ballot papers from the bar is a way to evade cross-examination.

As the 1st & 2nd Respondents put it in their brief -

"Had the ...ballot boxes and papers been admitted in evidence from the bar through counsel, the effect will be to limit the Respondents' right to fair hearing by taking away their right to cross-examination in respect of the ballot boxes and papers because there would be no one to cross-examine on same. This was the clear intention of the Appellants which should be seriously deprecated".

A total fallacy; as I stated earlier, a subpoena duces tecum is essentially a Court Order requiring someone to appear as a witness and bring with him documents relevant to the case and where a party brings a witness to Court on a subpoena duces tecum, merely to produce documents, as in this case he need not be sworn and he
cannot also be cross-examined.

Thus, even if an INEC official had gone into the witness box to tender the ballot boxes and ballot papers, he would tender them and not be cross-examined. It is only where he is issued a subpoena ad testificandum ordering him to appear and give evidence that he would be open to cross-examination." Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JCA (Pp 17 - 19 Paras D - B)

"Without education ….... what is man but a splendid slave, a reasoning savage vacillating between the dignity of an intelligence derived from God and the degradation of passion participated with brutes…...."