Bamgbose v Daniel

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date1954
Date1954
Year1954
CourtPrivy Council
[PRIVY COUNCIL.] MATTHEW OLAJIDE BAMGBOSE APPELLANT; AND JOHN BANKOLE DANIEL AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS. ON APPEAL FROM THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL. 1954 July 14, 15; Oct. 12. LORD MORTON OF HENRYTON, LORD COHEN, and LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM.

West Africa (Nigeria) - Succession - Intestacy - Child of marriage under Marriage Ordinance, 1884 - Polygamous marriages - In accordance with native law and custom - Right of issue to succeed - on intestacy - Applicability of law of England - Marriage Ordinance, No. 14 of 1884 (Lagos), s. 41 - Statute of Distribution, 1670 (22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 10). - Conflict of Laws - Succession - Legitimacy - Domicile of parents at birth of child - Polygamous marriage.

The deceased, the child of a marriage contracted under the Marriage Ordinance, 1884, of the Colony of Lagos, which provided in section 41 that the disposable estate of such a person dying intestate should be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the law of England relating to the distribution of the personal estates of intestates, any native law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding, died domiciled in Nigeria and intestate. He was said to have entered into nine polygamous marriages in Nigeria in accordance with native law and custom, and no question of his capacity to do so by his local law arose. As between the appellant, who claimed as lawful nephew of the deceased to succeed to the whole estate, and the respondents, who claimed as legitimate children of the deceased born in Nigeria of the polygamous marriages to exclude him:—

Held, that, subject to the respondents establishing their status of legitimacy under the law of their domicile, they came within the class of persons entitled to succeed under the English Statute of Distributions, which was the relevant law of England in 1884. As a matter of construction and on the authorities that statute could not be limited in its local application to children who were the issue of monogamous unions, and the effect of its application to the cases to which it applied was to fix the order of succession according to a table different from that prevailing under native law and custom.

The principle of In re Goodman's Trusts (1881) 17 Ch.D. 266 — that if a child is legitimate by the law of the country where at the time of its birth its parents were domiciled, the English law of succession to personalty recognizes that status — is applicable to children of polygamous unions.

In re the Estate of Herbert Samuel Heelas Macaulay, decd. (1951) Cyclostyled Reports, Nov. 23, 1951, which was followed by the West African Court of Appeal in the present case, and which overruled In re the Estate of Frederick Akindele Somefun (1941) 7 W.A.C.A. 156, approved.

Judgment of the West African Court of Appeal affirmed.

APPEAL (No. 19 of 1953) from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal (June 2, 1952), in a matter relating to the distribution of the estate of John St. Matthew Daniel (hereafter referred to as the deceased), who died at Lagos on April 25, 1948, intestate. The Administrator-General of Nigeria was appointed administrator of the estate by order of the Supreme Court of Nigeria made on February 1, 1949.

The followings facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee: The history of the matter was as follows. The deceased was the son, born posthumously, of Matthew Joaquim Daniel and Theresa Maria, who were married in a Wesleyan Methodist church in Lagos on September 28, 1890. That was a marriage under the Marriage Ordinance, 1884, of the Colony of Lagos, which applied to any person subject to native law and custom who contracted a marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance. The deceased was the only child born of the marriage. The deceased's parents had another son, Pedro, who was born, out of wedlock, in 1884. Pedro appeared to have entered into a Christian form of marriage at Lagos in 1909. It was claimed by the appellant that Pedro became legitimated in 1929 by virtue of the Legitimacy Ordinance of Nigeria of 1929, which introduced the principle of legitimation per subsequens matrimonium and applied it to marriages contracted both before and after the date of the Ordinance. Pedro died in 1936. The appellant claimed to be the only child of Pedro's marriage. The deceased was said to have entered into nine polygamous marriages in accordance with native law and custom, and the respondents (other than the Administrator-General) claimed, as issue of those polygamous marriages, to be legitimate children of the deceased under Nigerian law. It would appear, and was assumed at the hearing, that all the persons mentioned were at all material times domiciled in Nigeria. The contest in this appeal lay between the appellant who claimed as lawful nephew of the deceased to succeed to the whole of the estate, and respondents who claimed, as children of the deceased procreated by polygamous marriages, to exclude him.

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria at Lagos, Robinson J., on May 17, 1951, made orders for distribution of the estate among the deceased's children. On appeal by the present appellant the West African Court of Appeal (Sutton P., de Comarmond Ag.C.J. (Nigeria) and Coussey J.A.) on June 2, 1952, allowed the appeal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence before the trial judge to justify his assumption that the 12 children concerned were issue of marriages with the deceased and remitted the respondents' motions for distribution of the estate to the court below for hearing de novo. The Court of Appeal further directed that the court below should require the respondents to adduce evidence sufficient to satisfy it on the following matters: (1) Whether the mothers of the 12 respondents were married to the intestate John St. Matthew Daniel, in accordance with the native law and custom applicable in each case. (2) Whether the respondents, or any of them, were the issue of such marriages; and if so, of which such marriages; and (3) whether by the native law and custom applicable in each case the respondents, or any of them, had the status of legitimate children.

The appellant was allowed to be joined as opposer to the respondents' motions.

In so doing it was clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that they rejected a claim by the appellant to oust the respondents from any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Attorney-General (Victoria) v Commonwealth
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Re Shiu Pak Nin
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 11 February 2014
    ...Kuehl for the trustee; K. Farrow, Q.C. as amicus curiae. Cases cited: (1) B, In re, 1999 CILR 460, referred to. (2) Bamgbose v. Daniel, [1955] A.C. 107; [1954] 3 W.L.R. 561; [1954] 3 All E.R. 263, referred to. (3) Bank of Credit & Comm. Intl. S.A. v. Ali (No. 1), [2002] 1 A.C. 251; [2001] 2......
  • Allen Chastanet v Ernest Hilaire
    • St Lucia
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
    • 16 January 2020
    ...that the courts of Saint Lucia should apply the law of England from time to time and not when article 917A was enacted in 1956. Bamgbose v Daniel and others [1954] 3 All ER 263 distinguished; Cyril Mathurin and another v Anthony Augustin qua administrator of the Estate of Yasmin Natasha Au......
  • Sowa v Sowa
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 10 February 1961
    ...and decree by the courts. 12 Two cases in the Privy Council - Khoo Hool Leong v. Khoo Chong Yeok, 1930 Appeal Cases, page 346, and Bamgbose v. Daniel, 1955 Appeal Cases, page 107 - were relied on as showing that the courts have narrowed the principle in Hyde v. Hyde. But those cases merely ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ENGLISH STATUTES IN SINGAPORE COURTS
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1991, December 1991
    • 1 December 1991
    ...Eng Swee(1887) 4 Ky. 325. The same interpretation was adopted by the Judicial Committee on appeal from West Africa in Bamgbose v. Daniel[1955] A.C. 107. 271 [1891] 2 Q.B. 267 at p. 272. 272 (1937) 58 C.L.R. 618 at p. 634. 273 (1909) 8 C.L.R. 465. 274 Ibid., at p. 500. 275 (1915) 20 C.L.R. 1......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT