The case is a leading West African authority on Res judicata, especially the requirement that the previous judgment must be properly proved;
Rights of beneficiaries under a will;
When a beneficiary can (or cannot) sue for an account;The distinction between trustees and beneficiaries in estate matters.
This decision is particularly useful in estate administration, trust law, and procedural law involving estoppel per rem judicatam.
FACTS OF THE CASE OF MUSTAPHA RUFAI OJIKUTU & ORS v. BINTU FATUMO FELLA LAW-MADE-SIMPLE-REPORT (L.M.S.R.)
The plaintiffs (appellants) were beneficiaries under a will of one Osenatu Osikesi. They sued the defendant (respondent) for:
.An account of rents collected on property at 39 Agarawu Street, Lagos;
.Alleging she collected the rents as their agent.
They also claimed that the property had been devised to them and the defendant under the will.
The defendant admitted the will’s devise (though wrongly), but raised a defence that the matter was res judicata, relying on a 1938 consent judgment (Suit 376/1938) which allegedly declared the property family property, not the testatrix’s to dispose of.
However:There was no evidence that the plaintiffs were parties to that 1938 suit.The consent judgment itself was never tendered in evidence during the retrial.
Despite this, the trial judge upheld the plea of res judicata and dismissed the claim.The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUSTAPHA RUFAI OJIKUTU & ORS v. BINTU FATUMO FELLA LAW-MADE-SIMPLE-REPORT (L.M.S.R.)
Cole v. Cole (1898)Full Case Summary & Legal Analysis | L.M.S.R
(1) Was the plea of res judicata properly established?
(2) Could the plaintiffs, as beneficiaries, maintain an action for account against the defendant?
(3) Was the defendant proved to be their agent?
HOLDING OF THE COURT (WACA)
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but made several important legal clarifications.
(1) Res judicata FAILED There was no proof of the earlier judgment.
The court held that the trial judge wrongly accepted the plea of res judicata because:The alleged judgment in Suit 376/1938 was not tendered in evidence;No evidence showed that the plaintiffs were parties or privies to that suit;
The burden of proof lay on the defendant, and she called no evidence.
(2) Beneficiaries cannot sue directly for an account from a debtor to the trust
Even though the res judicata failed, the appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs lacked the legal capacity to sue for an account.The court held:
The legal estate vests in the trustees, not the beneficiaries.
Beneficiaries only have equitable interests.They cannot sue a third party (debtor to the trust estate) without going through the trustee.
No evidence of agency
The plaintiffs also argued that the defendant was their agent, but:The court found no proof of agency, therefore no entitlement to an account.
IMPORTANT DICTA (KEY STATEMENTS OF LAW)
Coussey J.A. – on Res Judicata
“The judgment was not given in evidence and no evidence was offered concerning it. The plaintiffs therefore have cause to appeal as to this ground.”
This sets a critical principle:A plea of res judicata must be strictly proved by producing the judgment and proving parties, subject matter, and issues.
On Beneficiaries and Legal Estate.
“If the will… is of effect the legal estate… vested in the trustees. The plaintiffs have no interest in the legal estate.”
This restates foundational trust law:Only trustees can sue third parties for debts owed to the estate. Beneficiaries cannot.
On Proper Remedy of Beneficiaries
Coussey J.A. referenced Sharpe v. San Paolo Railway (1873):
“If the trustee would not take proper steps… the remedy of the cestui que trust was to file a bill against the trustee for the execution of the trust.”
This is a core trust-law principle:Beneficiaries must compel trustees, not bypass them.
MUSTAPHA RUFAI OJIKUTU v. FELLA(1954) Full Report L.M.S.R
RELEVANT AUTHORITIES CITED IN MUSTAPHA RUFAI OJIKUTU & ORS v. BINTU FATUMO FELLA LAW-MADE-SIMPLE-REPORT (L.M.S.R.)
The court relied on:
Sharpe v. San Paolo Railway (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. 597
Establishes that beneficiaries cannot sue debtors directly; they must act through trustees.
Yeatman v. Yeatman (1877) 7 Ch. D. 210
Exception applies only in special circumstances where trustees cannot act.The court held no special circumstance existed here.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE
This case is important for:
(A) Trust Law:Confirms the division between legal estate (trustees) and equitable interest (beneficiaries).Clarifies when beneficiaries may sue.
(B) Procedural Law – Res Judicata:Reinforces strict proof requirements.Judges cannot assume that a judgment binds parties unless proven.
Res judicata must be proved, not assumed.Courts will not accept res judicata without evidence, even if raised repeatedly.
(C) Estate Litigation:Provides guidance on how beneficiaries should deal with individuals mishandling estate property.
FINAL OUTCOME IN MUSTAPHA RUFAI OJIKUTU & ORS v. BINTU FATUMO FELLA (WACA, 1954)
Res judicata plea failed
But beneficiaries lacked legal standing, soAppeal was dismissed (no costs)
Ababio II v. Kweku Nsemfoo(1947) Full Report L.M.S.R
Cole v. Cole (1898)Full Case Summary & Legal Analysis | L.M.S.R
IFEZUE V. MBADUGHA & ANOR (1984) FULL SUMMARY
Egbe v. Adefarasin & Anor (1985) FULL SUMMARY
Domingo v. The Queen(1963) Full Summary LAW-MADE-SIMPLE
Relationship Between the Penal Code and Criminal Code in Nigeria
YOU CAN ALSO SEARCH FOR MORE CASE SUMMARISES USING THE WEBSITE SEARCH BAR