{"id":88268,"date":"2025-02-27T08:30:53","date_gmt":"2025-02-27T08:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/?p=88268"},"modified":"2025-02-27T08:30:57","modified_gmt":"2025-02-27T08:30:57","slug":"new-vista-in-the-right-of-female-children-to-inherit-in-onitsha-a-review-of-olive-onono-v-chibundo-ikemefuna-anor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dnllegalandstyle.com\/dnl\/new-vista-in-the-right-of-female-children-to-inherit-in-onitsha-a-review-of-olive-onono-v-chibundo-ikemefuna-anor\/","title":{"rendered":"New Vista in The Right of Female Children to Inherit in Onitsha \u2013 A Review of Olive Onono V. Chibundo Ikemefuna & \u00a0Anor."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Elvis Evbaruovbokhanre Asia<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have delivered landmark judgments upholding the rights of females to inherit, particularly in the southeastern part of Nigeria. Cases in point include Okeke v. Okeke (2017) LPELR-42582(CA); Okafor v. Isitorh&Anor (2015) LPELR-25892(CA); Ugolo v. Odiama (2019) LPELR-47168(CA); Mr. David Chiduluo& Ors v. Mrs. Mary Attansey&Anor (2019) LPELR-48243(CA); Ukeje&Anor v. Ukeje (2014) LPELR-22724(SC); and Ugbene v. Ugbene& Ors (2016) LPELR-42110(CA). However, discriminatory customary practices, like a virus, die hard. In practice, what has been won is merely a battle; the war against all vestiges of customary practices that relegate women is far from over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The battle for the emancipation of women from oppressive customary practices gained significant momentum on November 5, 2024, when the Anambra State High Court, per Honourable Justice S.N. Odili, extended the right of inheritance to all forms of property. This decision is crucial for several reasons. First, it touches on the estate of a foremost jurist in the country. Second, it involves highly educated male children who conveniently invoked a legally moribund custom to deny their sisters the right to inheritance. The most significant aspect of this decision is that it struck down the distinction between personal and ancestral property for the purpose of determining women\u2019s inheritance rights in Onitsha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff, is the 2nd<\/sup> daughter of a former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, who passed away in 1999. The plaintiff’s case was that upon the death of her father, two of his male children, one of whom is a senior lawyer, took over his estate and their ancestral Iyasele Nsu family properties in Onitsha. Although Letters of Administration were obtained in Lagos for her late father\u2019s personal estate, the 1st<\/sup> defendant prevented their resealing by the Anambra State High Court by placing a caveat and appropriated the properties exclusively without considering the plaintiff\u2019s interest or that of other family members, including their aged mother, who passed away before the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The summary of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0A declaration that she is a beneficiary of her late father\u2019s estate and a member of the IyaseleNsu family, entitled to an equal share and interest in the properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. \u00a0A declaration that the Onitsha native law and custom\u2014or any other custom\u2014that disinherits her simply because she is female is discriminatory, unconstitutional, unfair, and repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0An order mandating the defendants to prepare an inventory of the estates and render an account, as well as restraining them from dealing with the estates without the concurrence of other family members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Plaintiff gave evidence in line with her claim and tendered various documents including the minutes of the meeting presided over by the late Chief Frederick Rotimi Alade Williams, QC, SAN at which the great legal titan attempted to resolve the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite being served the originating process in November 2020, the defendants failed to file any defense. The first defendant, a lawyer representing himself, cross-examined the plaintiff to demonstrate that Iyasele Nsu property is an ancestral property and that he was the diokpa, the eldest male child in the Iyasele Nsu clan. The court refused the 2nd defendant’s application for adjournment. The second Defendant had appeared with different lawyers to seek adjournments on different dates, obviously to delay the matter, hence the refusal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decision of the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After a comprehensive review of the case, the Court held that the customary practice prohibiting female children like the Plaintiff from inheritance is discriminatory on the grounds of gender and violates Section 42(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. The court agreed with the plaintiff that she is a beneficiary of her father\u2019s estate and a member of the Iyasele Nsu family, thereby entitled to a share of both her father\u2019s estate and the family properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further held that the Plaintiff was entitled to be part of the management of the properties and ordered the defendants to prepare an inventory of the estate and Iyasele Nsu family properties. They were also ordered to render an account of all monies received and dealings on the properties and were restrained from further dealing with the properties without the concurrence of the Plaintiff and other members of the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In relation to ancestral or family property in Onitsha, the court declared:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“It is hereby declared that the Onitsha native law and custom which disinherits the plaintiff and prevents her from having a share or interest in the Iyasele Nsu family property on the ground that she is a woman is unconstitutional, null, and void.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commentary\/Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision aligns with appellate court judgments affirming the rights of female children to inherit from their fathers\u2019 estates. Significantly, the ruling clarifies that these rights extend to ancestral property or any property of any description. The practical effect of the decision is the dismantling of the patrilineal inheritance system in Onitsha. This case marks a landmark moment as it is perhaps the first to expressly strike down such aspects of the customs and traditions in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the publication,Regulations on Funeral Rites, Marriages, and Other Customary Matters in Onicha<\/em><\/strong>, it is suggested that Supreme Court decision on female inheritance pertain only to private property and not ancestral property. This decision commendably nullifies that misconception, affirming that women are entitled to inherit all forms of property, whether private or ancestral. Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex, encompasses such patrilineal cultural practices. Nothing is more discriminatory than a culture that denies a woman inheritance solely because of her gender.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Judgment is a stark reminder that despite appellate court rulings declaring such practices unconstitutional, the exclusion of females from inheritance persists. If this could occur in the family of a former Chief Judge of the Federal High Court with educated male children, one can only imagine the plight of the majority who lack the means to seek redress in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond judicial interventions therefore, there is an urgent need for legislation and enforcement to eradicate customs and traditions that discriminate against women. An inclusive society, where everyone is regarded as equal, serves as a catalyst for growth and development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State Houses of Assembly in affected states should enact laws to outlaw such practices and establish systems for complaints and redress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Elvis is a Legal Practitioner and led the legal team that represented the plaintiff in this suit.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Elvis Evbaruovbokhanre Asia Introduction The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have delivered landmark judgments upholding the rights of females to inherit, particularly in the southeastern part of Nigeria. Cases in point include Okeke v. Okeke (2017) LPELR-42582(CA); Okafor v. Isitorh&Anor (2015) LPELR-25892(CA); Ugolo v. Odiama (2019) LPELR-47168(CA); Mr. David Chiduluo& Ors v. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":86651,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-opinions"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t