CASE TITLE: OLARENWAJU v. ENEFOLA (2026) LPELR-83994(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH MARCH, 2026
JUSTICES: BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J. C. AADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J. C. A
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J. C. A
PRACTICE AREA: COMMERCIAL LAW/ CONTRACT
FACTS:
This appeal borders on recovery of debt from the estate of a deceased debtor.
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Kogi State, sitting at Lokoja.
The Appellant instituted an action against the Respondent, in her representative capacity as widow and beneficiary of the Estate of her late husband, Christopher Enefola, seeking recovery of an alleged loan of N6,000,000 advanced to the deceased in 2005, together with interest. He claimed that the loan was secured by the title documents of a property at Lokoja and the particulars of a Peugeot 504 motor vehicle, which the deceased allegedly pledged as collateral. The Appellant maintained that the deceased defaulted in repayment and that, following his death, the Respondent took possession of the secured assets but failed to liquidate the outstanding indebtedness.
The Respondent denied liability, contending that she was neither a party to nor a guarantor of the alleged loan transaction and had signed the relevant document only as a witness. She further challenged the Appellant’s locus standi, the legality of the money-lending transaction and the enforceability of the alleged security. At the trial, the Appellant admitted under cross-examination that the funds were sourced from third parties and that he was not a registered money lender. In its judgment, the trial Court held that the Appellant had not established ownership of the funds, a contractual relationship with the Respondent, or an enforceable pledge of the property against her or the Estate. It accordingly dismissed the action. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court of Appeal resolved the following issues for the determination of this appeal, thus;
Whether or not Exhibit D formed part of the Agreement of the parties as contained in numerous documents tendered as the Trial?
Whether the Respondent is a Proper Party to the action for the Recovery of the Sum of 6.5m borrowed and had remained unpaid after the death of her Husband and to her knowledge?
Whether from the various Letters and Documents exchanged there is Privity of Contract between the Appellant and the Deceased to warrant the Beneficiaries to inherit the Liabilities and pay the debt?
Whether the Respondent is liable to the debt owed by the deceased husband having been sued as Legal Representative of the Respondent having intermeddled with Property used as security?
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
On the third and fourth issues, which go to the heart of whether a spouse or beneficiary inherits the contractual liability of the deceased, Counsel to the Appellant submitted that privity subsisted between the Appellant and the deceased, and that the Respondent, as beneficiary in possession of the secured property, was under a duty to discharge the debt. Relying on Uwakwe v Odogwu, he argued that a person who intermeddles with the estate of a deceased assumes its liabilities, so that the Respondent, even without letters of administration, became an executor de son tort answerable to the Estate’s creditors. He added that she signed Exhibit D, knew of the indebtedness before and after her husband’s death, and refused to release the pledged property, facts the trial Court allegedly failed to consider.
Counsel urged the Court to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and enter judgment for the Appellant in terms of the reliefs sought.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the trial Court’s finding that the Respondent was not a party to the loan transaction, submitting that the real question at trial was whether she could be fixed with liability merely because she was the wife of the deceased and had signed Exhibit D. He argued that Exhibits A and B disclosed that the borrowing was between the late Christopher Enefola and third parties, Charles Ugomo and Nnadi Ochekwu, through the Appellant, and that Exhibit D contained only a request by the deceased for time to repay and a personal undertaking by him. The Respondent signed it merely as a witness, and the document imposed no contractual obligation on her. The attempt to impose liability on a mere witness was, therefore, misconceived.
Counsel placed heavy reliance on the doctrine of privity of contract, citing African Reinsurance Corporation v Abate Fantaye (1986) LPELR-214 SC for the proposition that only parties to a contract can sue or be sued upon it, and Kano State Oil & Allied Products Ltd v Kofa Trading Co Ltd (1996) 3 NWLR (PART 436) 244 for the rule that a stranger to a contract can neither enforce nor be bound by it.
On the question whether the Respondent was liable as successor, beneficiary or executor de son tort, he submitted that no evidence was led that she was administratrix or executrix of the Estate, that marriage alone confers no representative capacity over a deceased’s Estate, and that the Appellant failed to show either a grant of letters of administration to her or any intermeddling attracting liability. He urged the Court to respect the findings of fact of the trial Court.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was allowed.
RATIO:
CONTRACT- LIABILITY IN CONTRACT: Whether a spouse or a beneficiary can inherit the contractual liability of the deceased”
“The question, however, is not whether the deceased was indebted. That fact was never seriously in dispute. The real legal question is whether the Respondent, as a widow or alleged beneficiary, inherited the personal contractual liability of the deceased.
The doctrine of privity of contract answers that question decisively. A contract binds only the parties who entered into it. A stranger cannot be burdened with its obligations nor enjoy its benefits. See MAJOR CONCEPT LIMITED & ANOR VS PRINCE (ENGR.) ARTHUR EZE (2025) LPELR-80563(SC) PER HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JSC (PAGES 50-52, PARAS E-A; KANO STATE OIL & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD VS KOFA TRADING CO LTD (1996) 3 NWLR (PART 436) 244 PER ADIO, JSC; VICTOR DANIEL O. IRONBAR VS CROSS RIVER BASIN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2025) LPELR-81317 (SC) PER HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC (PAGES 35-36, PARAS E-E).
Consequently, the Respondent, who was neither borrower nor guarantor, could not inherit contractual liability merely by being a relative, spouse, or beneficiary.
In law, a beneficiary does not inherit the debts of the deceased; rather, the Estate inherits the debts. The distinction is fundamental. The Estate of a deceased person is a legal aggregation of the assets and liabilities left behind. It is from that Estate, and not from the personal purse of beneficiaries, that creditors may be satisfied. The liability is, therefore, limited to the assets of the Estate and is enforceable only through the machinery of administration.
This position accords with the long-settled rule that the proper person to answer claims against a deceased debtor is the personal representative, executor, or administrator, and not individual beneficiaries. The law protects beneficiaries from personal liability beyond the value of the Estate they receive. A creditor may reach the Estate, but not the private property of those entitled to inherit from it.
Thus, while the various letters and documents proved the indebtedness of the deceased to the Appellant, they did not impose liability on the Respondent personally. Her knowledge of the transaction, even if established, could not create Privity of Contract where none existed.
Accordingly, the Appellant’s contention that beneficiaries “inherit liabilities” must be rejected as a matter of law. What is inherited are the assets, and the assets remain subject to the debts of the deceased in the course of administration. The beneficiary becomes liable only where, by her conduct, she assumes control of the estate and thereby attracts the responsibilities of a personal representative.
The trial Court was, therefore, correct to the extent that it held the Respondent did not incur liability merely because the deceased owed a debt. However, the Court ought to have proceeded further to determine whether the Respondent’s possession and control of the pledged property amounted to an assumption of estate responsibility. Its failure to do so did not negate the principle that beneficiaries do not automatically inherit contractual liabilities.
In summary, privity of contract existed between the Appellant and the deceased borrower, but it did not extend to the Respondent as a beneficiary. Liability did not pass to her by succession alone; it could arise only by administration or intermeddling with the Estate.” Per BANJOKO, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol