Appeal
Court, 19th May,
1938.
Appeal from judgment
of Supreme Court.
Declaration that Plaintiff is
entitled to live on Estate
Property for life and Injunction
restraining Executors from
selling such property
obtained-No evidence (a) of
conformity by Executors with
their duty or (b) of
consideration.
Held: Appeal allowed on grounds
(a)
and
(b)
and judgment of non suit
entered.
There is no need to set out the
facts.
E. J. Alex Taylor
(with him
A. Latunde Johnson)
for the Appellants.
O.
Alakija
(with him
Wells Palmer)
for the Respondent.
The following joint judgment was
delivered:-
KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PETRIDES,
C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM
PAUL, J.
The plaintiff in this case
sought in the Court below and
obtained against the defendants
as Executors an order declaring
that he is entitled to live on a
property, which is part
of
the estate
of
which the defendants are
Executors, during his lifetime.
He has also obtained an
injunction restraining the
Executors from selling the said
property. Both the declaration
and the injunction were claimed,
and by the Court below granted,
without any qualification or
condition whatsoever.
The plaintiff based his claim on
a letter dated 10th August,
1935, addressed to him by the
Secretary of the Board of
Executors on behalf of the
defendants.
That letter is in the following
terms:-
"69, Bamgbose Street, "
P.O. Box 499,
" Lagos, Nigeria.
" 10th August, 1995.
" DEAR, Sirs,
"I am directed by the Board of
Executors to inform you that the
"Board has decided to dispose of
all the properties mortgaged by
you, " excepting your property
No. 23, Bamgbose Street, which
the Board has " decided to
reserve for your occupation, to
remain in, all your life time.
"Yours faithfully,
" (Sgd.)
ALBERT E. CARRENA,
"
Secretary
to the Board.
"L. A. Cardoso, Esq.,
"
Bamgbose Street,
" Lagos.
Pleadings were ordered and in
regard to that letter the
plaintiff's case on his
statement of claim was and still
is as follows: -
" (4) The plaintiff during the
lifetime of the said J. H.
Doherty " was a personal friend
and in consideration of favours
done by him " obtained this loan
on the understanding that he
would be allowed to "reside in
the premises Nos. 21 and 23
Bamgbose Street in Lagos " until
his death.
" (5) That the late J. H.
Doherty never during his
lifetime "disturbed the
plaintiff, and the Executors in
consideration of the "wishes of
the deceased confirmed the same
by letter of the 10th "August,
1935, when they decided to
realise on the mortgage."
In their statement of defence
the defendants pleaded in regard
to this letter as follows:-
" The plaintiff has always
acknowledged in writing his
indebtedness
"under
the Deed of Mortgage and has
given no consideration for the "
letter written to him on the
l0th August, 1935, to make such
letter " binding in law. The
Statute of Limitation does not
therefore apply " in the
circumstances."
The learned Judge in the Court
below held that valuable
consideration (namely the
forbearance by the plaintiff to
press for accounts of sales
effected by the defendants of
other properties) was given for
that letter and that plaintiff
was therefore entitled to the
declaration and injunction
claimed.
Against that judgment the
defendants have appealed to this
Court, the main ground of appeal
being that the Court below was
wrong in holding that valuable
consideration was given for the
promise contained in the letter
of 10th August, 1935.
Apart altogether from that
ground of appeal or any other
point raised by appellants'
counsel in his appeal it seems
to us that it is the duty of
this Court to set aside the
judgment of the Court below on
another and more fundamental
ground not raised by the
appellants.
In our view when a plaintiff
seeks from the Court an order
upon Executors to do, or abstain
from doing, a particular thing
in the course of their
administration as Executors
there is upon the plaintiff the
onus
of proving, and upon the Court
the plain duty of being
satisfied, that the order sought
is consistent with the faithful
performance by the Executors of
their fiduciary duties. That
onus
on the plaintiff and that duty
on the part of the Court in our
opinion exist, whatever
consideration the Executors may
have receive?, and whether the
Executors resist the order
sought or not. 1£ It were
otherwise the Court might find
itself ordering Executors to
commit what might be a grave
breach of trust. It would be
highly improper for a Court to
take that risk.
In the present case the evidence
in the Court below leaves the
Court entirely in the dark as to
whether the order sought is
consistent or inconsistent with
the Executors' duties in their
fiduciary capacity. The
plaintiff did not put before the
Court below the terms of the
will or the facts as to the
financial position of the
estate. For aught that the Court
knows the failure of the
Executors to sell the property
in question during the lifetime
of the plaintiff may involve
now, or under conditions which
may emerge at some future date,
a gross breach of duty on the
part of the Executors and yet
the Court granted the
declaration and injunction
claimed.
To our mind it is clear that
this Court must set aside the
judgment of the Court below on
this ground even though it was
not raised as a ground of appeal
by the appellants. This being a
fundamental matter going right
to the root of the issue between
j he parties it is perhaps not
strictly necessary to deal with
the grounds of appeal raised by
the appellant but we think it
fair to the appellant that we
should do so.
lt is clear upon the plaintiff's
statement of claim that his case
before the Court below was not
based on any valuable
consideration having passed from
him in regard to the letter of
10th August, 1935. In paragraph
5 he specifically states that it
was in consideration of the
wishes of the deceased that the
Executors wrote the letter on
which he founds. That is not in
law a valuable consideration.
The letter itself contains no
mention of any consideration. lt
was only in the
cross-examination of the
plaintiff that for the first
time it was alleged that the
Executors agreed to let the
plaintiff stay in the house in
consideration of his not
bothering them for the account
sales. The defendants in their
statement of defence expressly
pleaded (paragraph 10) no
valuable consideration for the
letter of 10th August, 1935, but
the plaintiff continued his case
to the end without seeking any
amendment of his statement of
claim and in our opinion he
ought not t() have been allowed
by the learned trial Judge to
make a case which was contrary
to his pleadings. Upon that
ground the appellant would in
any case have been entitled to
succeed in this Court as we do
not consider that this is a case
in which this Court should
exercise its discretionary power
to amend the statement of claim
at this stage.
The judgment of the Court below
is set aside
in toto
and a judgment of non-suit is
substituted therefor. The
appellants are entitled to costs
in this Court assessed at thirty
guineas and to costs in the
Court below assessed at fifteen
guineas.