Marriage Ordinance of the Colony
of Lagos of 1884-Section
41-DistributiIJn of intestate's
estate-Children of customary
marriages-Distribution under
Statute of Distribution,
1670,
and Act of 1685-Legitimacy by
law of country of
origin-Nigeria.
On appeal from the judgment of
the \Vest African Court of
Appeal dated 2nd June, 1952 (in
last preceding pages).
One John St. Matthew Daniel died
intestate and his estate fell to
be distributed in accordance
with section 41 of the Marriage
Ordinance, 1884 (not the
Marriage Ordinance of 1914 as
was assumed in the Court of
Appeal in Nigeria, but there is
no material difference affecting
the appeal); he was born to his
parents after their marriage
under the Ordinance. Before
their marriage the parents had
had a son named Pedro, who (it
may be assumed for the purposes
of this case) became legitimated
by the subsequent marriage of
his parents by virtue of the
Legitimacy Ordinance, 1929; and
Pedro married under the Marriage
Ordinance, and the appellant
claimed to be his only child. It
was said that John married
several wives in polygamous form
under native law and custom, and
that the respondents were
children of his from those
wives.
The appellant claimed as lawful
nephew of the deceased John to
succeed to the whole estate; the
respondents claimed as children
of the deceased to exclude him.
The contest turned on the
interpretation of the said
section 41 (text in judgment
infra)
which provides that where any
person who is issue of a
marriage under the Ordinance
dies intestate-
" The personal property of such
Intestate and also any real
property of which the said
Intestate might have disposed by
Will shall 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."
In Nigeria a man may marry more
wives than one under native law
and custom (so long as there is
no subsisting marriage between
him and a wife married to him
under the Marriage Ordinance)
and the children are legitimate.
All the parties in the case were
native,; of Nigeria and
domiciled in Nigeria. (It
remained to be proved, under the
order of the Court of Appeal,
whether the respondents were
children of wives married to the
deceased John in customary form,
but for the purposes of the case
it may be assumed that they
were.)
The argument for the appellant
before the Judicial Committee
was (1) that children under the
Statute of Distribution, 1670,
and the Act of 1685 (which is
the relevant law of England for
the purposes of the Nigeria
Marriage Ordinance) meant
children who could claim kinship
with the deceased through
monogamous marriage (viz.
marriage under the Marriage
Ordinance), and (2) that the
Statute of Distribution could
not be applied to polygamous
unions because of the difficulty
of applying its provisions to a
plurality of wives. (Note: in
this case there was no claim by
any wife to a share in the
estate of the deceased.)
For the respondents the argument
was that by the law of their
domicile of origin they were
legitimate children of the
deceased and accordingly came
within the class of persons
entitled to succeed under the
English Statute.
[pg116]
Held: (I) Section 41 of the
Marriage Ordinance of 1884
applies the Statute of
Distribution to a limited class
of persons domiciled in Nigeria,
and the effect of the
application of the statute in
the cases to which it applies is
to fix the order of succession
according to a table different
from that prevailing under
native law and custom, leaving
it to the Courts to determine,
in accordance with the settled
principle that the legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child is to be
determined by the law of that
country which is the country of
its origin, where at the time of
its birth its parents were
domiciled, who are the
particular individuals who fall
within any particular class in
the succession table; and the
statute cannot be limited in its
local application in Nigeria to
children who are the issue of
monogamous unions;
(2) Whatever difficulties may
arise in the case of the mothers
of the children in this case (as
to which no opinion is
expressed) the claims of the
children as lawful children of
the deceased must be considered
independently and are not
affected by the question whether
the status of their mothers as
wives of the deceased can or
cannot be recognised.
Cases cited;-
(1) The Estate of Herbert Samuel
Heelas Macaulay (deceased) in
the West African Court of
Appeal, 23rd November, 1951.
(2) Estate of Frederick Akidele
Some fun,
1941, 7
W.A.C.A. 156. (3) Cole
v.
Cole,
1898, 1
N
LR. 15.
(4) Re Don's Estate,
1857, 4
Drew 194.
(5) Sinha Peerage Case,
1946, 1
All E.R. 348. (
6) Baindail
v.
Baindail,
1946, 1
All E.R. 346.
(7) Cheang Tye Phin
v.
Tan Ah Loy,
1920,
A.C. 369.
(8) Khoo Hooi Leong
v.
Khoo Hean Kwee,
1926,
A.C. 529.
(9) Khoo Hooi Leong
v.
Khoo Chong Yeok,
1930,
A
.C. 346.
(10) Re Goodman's Trusts,
1881, 17
Ch. D. 266.
(11) Seedats Executors
v.
The Master (Natal),
1917,
S.A.L.R. 302.
s(12)
Re Bischoffsheim,
1948,
Ch. 79.
Appeal from the "Vest African
Court of Appeal; Privy Council
No. 19 of 1953.
Reason for the Report of the
Lords of the Judicial Committee
of the
Privy Council, delivered 15th
July, 1954, by Lord Keith of
Avonholm.
This is an appeal from a
judgment of the "Vest African
Court of Appeal in a matter
relating to the distribution of
the estate of J aIm St. Matthew
Daniel (hereafter referred to as
the deceased) who died at Lagos
on the 25th day of April, 1948,
intestate. The
Administrator-General of Nigeria
was appointed administrator of
the estate by Order of the
Supreme Court of Nigeria made on
1st February, 1949.
The history of the matter is as
follows; The deceased was the
son, born posthumously, of
Matthew
J oaquim Daniel and Theresa
Maria who were married in a
"Wesleyan Methodist Church in
Lagos on the 28th September,
1890. This 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 appears to have entered
into a Christian form of
marriage at Lagos in 1909. It is
claimed by the appellant that
Pedro became legitimated in 1929
by virtue of the Letitimacy
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
claims to be the only child of
Pedro's marriage. The deceased
is said to have entered into
nine polygamous marriages in
accordance with native law and
custom and the respondents
[pg117]
On appeal by the present
appellant the West African Court
of Appeal, on ~nc1 June,
1952, allowed the appeal on the
ground that there was
insufficient evidence before the
trial judge to justify his
assumption that the twelve
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 do 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
twelve 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, are 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,
have the status of legitimate
children.
The appellant was allowed to be
joined as opposer to the
respondents' motions.
In so doing it is clear from the
judgment of the Court of Appeal
that they rejected a claim by
the appellant to oust the
respondents from any share in
the estate even if they were
legitimate issue of polygamous
marriages by the deceased. The
appellant accordingly applied
for leave to appeal against the
judgment of the Court of Appeal
to Her Majesty in Council which
leave was granted by the Court
of Appeal on 6th October,
1952.
The question at issue arises
under the Marriage Ordinance of
the Colony of Lagos of
1884. In the \Vest
African Court of Appeal it was
assumed that the succession was
governed by the Marriage
Ordinance of Nigeria, of 1914.
It is now agreed between the
parties that it is the Ordinance
of 1884 that falls to be
considered and it appears to
their Lordships that this must
be so as the marriage of the
deceased's parents was
contracted under that Ordinance.
There is no material difference
in the language of the two
Ordinances on any point
affecting this appeal. It was at
one time indicated by an
amendment made by the
respondents to their pleadings
and allowed by their Lordships
that the respondents intended to
argue, as an alternative to
their main submission, that the
relevant section of the Marriage
Ordinance did not apply to the
deceased. In the end
counsel for the respondents did
not see his way to submit any
argument in support of this
amendment. Their Lordships
accordingly proceed on the view
which has been accepted
throughout this case that the
succession to the deceased's
estate turns upon an
interpretation of the relevant
provisions of the Marriage
Ordinance.
Section
41
of the Marriage Ordinance of
1884 is as follows:-
41. Where any person who
is subject to native law or
custom contracts a marriage in
accordance with the provisions
of this or of any other
Ordinance relating to marriage,
or has contracted a marriage
prior to the passing of this
Ordinance, which marriage is
validated hereby and such person
dies intestate, subsequently to
the commencement of this
Ordinance, leaving a widow or
husband or any issue of such
marriage,
And also where any person who is
issue of any such marriage as
aforesaid dies intestate
subsequently to the commencement
of this Ordinance,
[pg 118]
" The personal property of such
Intestate and also any real
property of which the said
Intestate might have disposed by
Will shall 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 .
.• Provided always, that where
by the law of England, any
portion of the estate of such
Intestate would become a portion
of the casual hereditary
Revenues of the Crown such
portion shall be distributed in
accordance with the provisions
of native law and custom and
shall not become a portion of
the said casual hereditary
Hevenues .
.• Provided also that real
property, the succession to
which cannot by native law or
custom be affected by
testamentary disposition shall
descend in accordance with the
provisions of such native law or
custom anything herein to the
contrary notwithstanding .
.. Before the Registrar of
Marriages issues his certificate
in the case of an intended
marriage, either party to which
is a person subject to native
law or custom, he shall explain
to both parties the effect of
these provisions as to the
succession to property as
affected by marriage."
From what has been said at the
outset of this judgment it
follows that the deceased falls
within the second category of
intestate, being a person who
was the child of a marriage
contracted under the Ordinance.
The short question is, what is
the effect of the direction that
his disposable estate shall 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?
The relevant law of England in
1884 is to be found in the
Statute of Distribution, 1670
(22 & 23 Car. II c. 20) and the
Act of 1685, 1 Jac. II c. 17.
For purposes of this appeal
their Lordships are concerned
only with the direction in the
Statute of Distribution dealing
with the succession of children
of an intestate. The appellant's
contention is that this law
precludes the succession on
intestacy of children or others
who cannot claim kinship with
the deceased through monogamous
marriage ; that the respondent
claimants being the offspring of
polygamous marriages fall to be
regarded as illegitimate under
the English Statute of
Distribution and that he, the
appellant, being the only person
who can claim kinship with the
deceased through monogamous
marriage is entitled to the
whole estate. This ignores one
factor, that the appellant's
father, the brother of the
deceased, was the issue of an
illicit union and was only
legitimated in 1929 by a statute
of the Nigerian Colony so that
the appellant would have to rely
on the law of his father's
domicile for the purpose of
bringing himself within the
class of legitimate heirs. This
point was not, however,
adumbrated in the Courts below
and owing to the course the
hearing took before their
Lordships was not developed in
argument before their Lordships'
Board. On the view on which this
judgment proceeds their
Lordships have found it
unnecessary to deal with this
point, to which special
considerations may apply.
Accordingly they do not refer
further to this matter.
The contention for the
respondent children is that by
the law of their domicile of
origin they are legitimate
children of the deceased and
accordingly come within the
class of persons entitled to
succeed under the English
Statute of Distribution. This
view has been upheld by the West
African Court of Appeal subject
to the respondents establishing
their status of legitimacy.
This question has been the
matter of some conflict of
decision in the Nigerian Courts.
It was very fully and clearly
considered in
The Estate of Herbert Samuel
Heelas Macaulay (deceased)
by the \Vest African Court of
Appeal in a judgment delivered
on 23rd November, 1951, by Sir
John Verity, Chief Justice, and
concurred in by the two other
members of the Court, which
decided in favour of
[pg119]
church, to which for one
reason or another the provisions
of a marriage ordinance did not
apply, the Courts held that the
parties must be taken to have
intended their succession on
intestacy to be regulated by
English law, not by native law
and custom. Their Lordships have
carefully considered these cases
but cannot extract from them any
principle that would affect the
present case. They find it
unnecessary to decide whether
the Courts were right in
applying the English law of
succession or whether if English
law was applicable it was
rightly applied in the
circumstances of the particular
cases.
Their Lordships would
observe that no question can
arise as to the capacity of
the deceased to enter into
polygamous marriage by his
local law. He himself was
the child of a monogamous
marriage, but that was no
impediment to his
contracting a marriage by
native law and custom. Even
a person who has himself
contracted a monogamous
marriage under the ordinance
is by section 37 of the
Ordinance prohibited from
contracting a valid marriage
under any native law or
custom only during the
continuance of the
monogamous marriage. If then
the respondent children are
found to have been from
birth legitimate children of
the deceased the only
question with which their
Lordships are concerned is
whether they are entitled to
share in the succession of
the deceased under the
Statute of Distribution.
Their Lordships entertain
little doubt that under what
are now well accepted
principles recognised by the
English courts no ground
exists, in circumstances
like the present, for
excluding the respondents
from taking their rights of
succession if they are
legitimate children of the
deceased under the law of
their domicile. In
He Dan's Estate,
1857, 4 Drew. 194 at 197
Vice-Chancellor Kindersley,
dealing with the status of a
child born in Scotland of a
father domiciled there and
legitimated by the
subsequent marriage of his
parents, said: .• It appears
to me that on the
authorities applicable to
this question the principle
is this: that the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of any
individual is to be
determined by the law of
that country which is the
country of his origin. If he
is legitimate in his own
country then all other
civilised countries, at
least all Christian
countries, recognise him as
legitimate everywhere.
Questions may arise and have
arisen whether the law which
is to determine the
legitimacy or illegitimacy
is the law of the country
where the individual was
born, or the law of the
country where the parents
intermarried, or the law of
the country of the domicile
of the parents? And if the
domicile of the parents was
different whether the law of
the father's or mother's
domicile governs? If it were
necessary for me to
determine these questions I
should hold that the law of
the father's domicile
governed." None of the
special questions referred
to in this passage arise
here for, as their Lordships
apprehend, all the
circumstances concur to fix
Nigeria as the domicile of
the parents, the place of
their marriages, and the
place of birth of the
children. This and similar
expressions of opinion in
earlier cases were no doubt
given in cases dealing with
the institution of
monogamous marriage. But
more recent authority shows
that the principle cannot be
confined within so narrow a
field. (See opinion of Lord
Maugham in the
Sinha Peerage Case
to be found in 1946, 1 All
E.R. at 348 and opinion of
Lord Greene, M.R., in
Baindail
Y.
Baindail, ibid
at 346.)
[pg
120]
Their Lordships' Board have
also on various occasions
had regard to and acted on
the application of the
Statute of Distribution to
Chinese successions in the
Straits Settlements, arising
from polygamous unions. (See
Cheang Tye Phin
v.
Tan Ah Loy
[1920J A.C. 369; Khoo
Hooi Leong v. Khoo
Hean Kwee [1926J A.C.
,529; Khoo Hooi Leong v.
Khoo Chong Yeok
[1930J A.C. 346.)
In their Lordships' opinion
the \Vest African Court of
Appeal has reached a right
conclusion on the law
applicable in this case.
Re Goodman's Trusts, 1881,
17 Ch.D. 266, on which that
Court in the case of
Macaulay's Estate
largely proceeded, was a
case under the Statute of
Distribution in which it was
held by a majority of the
Court of Appeal that a child
born in Holland, where her
parents were at the time
domiciled, who had been
legitimated under Dutch law
by the subsequent marriage
of the parents there, was
entitled to share as a "
brother's child" under the
Statute of Distribution. As
already indicated their
Lordships cannot hold that
the principle of this
decision is restricted to
the case of monogamous
marriage. Lord Justice
Cotton said in that case: "
I am of the opinion that if
a child is legitimate by the
law of the country where at
the time of its birth its
parents were domiciled, the
law of England, except in
the case of succession to
real estate in England,
recognises and acts on the
status thus declared by the
law of the domicil." And
Lord Justice James said: "
It must be borne in mind
that the Statute of
Distributions is not a
statute for Englishmen only,
but for all persons whether
English or not, dying
intestate and domiciled in
England and not for any
Englishman domiciled abroad
.... And as the law applies
universally to persons of
all countries, races and
religions whatsoever, the
proper law to be applied in
determining kindred is the
universal law, the
international law, adopted
by the comity of States. The
child of a man would be his
child so ascertained and so
determined." The decision
and reasoning of the
majority in that case has
not, so far as their
Lordships are aware, been
questioned in any subsequent
case. It proceeds in their
opinion on sound principle
and gives a meaning and
effect to the Statute of
Distribution wider than it
would have under the purely
domestic law of England.
In the present case the
Statute of Distribution is a
statute applying to a
limited class of persons
domiciled in Nigeria. As a
matter of construction and
on the authorities referred
to it cannot in their
Lordships' opinion be
limited in its local
application to children who
are the issue of monogamous
unions. The effect of the
application of the statute
in the cases to which it
applies is to fix the order
of succession according to a
table different from that
prevailing under native law
and custom, leaving it to
the Courts to determine in
accordance with the
principles indicated who are
the particular individuals
who fall within any
particular class in the
succession table.
It was contended for the
appellant that the Statute
of Distribution could not be
applied to polygamous unions
because of the difficulty of
applying its provisions to
a plurality of wives. The
West African Court of Appeal
observed that no claim had
been put forward in this
case by any person as a
widow of the deceased and
their Lordships propose to
say nothing as to what
rights, if any, widows would
have in the event of a claim
being made. They cannot,
however, agree with the
appellant's submission.
Whatever difficulties may
arise in the case of the
mothers of the children the
claims of the children as
lawful children of the
deceased must in their
Lordships' opinion be
considered independently.
This may be so in some cases
even in questions of status.
In a judgment of the Board
in
Khoo Hooi Leong
v.
Khoo Hean Kwee
[1926J A.C. 529, where the
claim of a child to be
legitimate by the law of a
community in which polygamy
was recognised and practised
was considered, Lord
Phillimore, who delivered
the judgment of the Board,
said: " In deciding upon a
case where the customs and
the laws are so different
from British ideas a Court
may do well to recollect
that it is a possible jural
conception that a child may
be legitimate though its
parents
[pg
121] there were
entitled to be treated as
legltimate children of the
widow was not entitled to
exemption in the matter of
succession duty but on the
contrary was liable to the
rate appropriate to a
stranger in blood, the rate
of duty attributable to the
children's share of the
succession was held to be
that borne by lawful
children of a testator.
Again in
Re Bischofjsheim
[1948] Ch. 79, Mr. Justice
Romer had to consider the
question of the legitimacy
for the purposes of
succession under the will of
an English testator of a
child born in New York of
English parents who were
domiciled in New York at the
time of the child's birth. A
question might have been
raised as to the validity of
the parents' marriage under
English law, but in holding
that the child was
legitimate by the law of New
York at the time of his
birth and therefore entitled
to be treated as a lawful
child of his mother under
the will, Mr. Justice Romer
adopted the view" that where
succession to personal
property depends on the
legitimacy of the claimant,
the status of legitimacy
conferred on him by his
domicile of origin (i.e. the
domicile of his parents at
his birth) will be
recognised by our courts;
and that if the legitimacy
be established, the validity
of hi