We all have a preconceived notion of who a bastard is. A bastard is an illegitimate child, born out of wedlock; nor neither was he later legitimated.

First, under the Nigeria Constitution, section 42(2) of the 1999 Constitution provides that no citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by the reason of the circumstances of his birth.
Section 42(2) goes to abolish any difference between a legitimate and illegitimate child.


Can a illegitimate child inherit ?

It depends.

1. Where the father or mother died, including him as a beneficiary in a will.
Where the father or mother died after writing a valid will and included the name of the illegitimate child as a beneficiary. Where an illegitimate Child is a beneficiary in a will, in that circumstance, the illegitimate child's right to inherit is incontestable and unshakeable, because the deceased has the right to will out his property to anybody he so desires.



2. Where the father or mother died without a will.
It is common occurrence to see an individual who married under the Act(registry) to still have a child out of wedlock.
In such instance there, always, arise some rancours between the children born within wedlock and those born outside of wedlock especially were the deceased fails to make a will before his death. This rancour usually borders on who gets the letter of administration of the estate of the deceased.
But going by section 42 of the constitution the mere fact that a child is born out of wedlock does not in itself work as a disadvantage for him when it comes to sharing of the deceased estate.

In the case of mgbodu v. Mgbodu, the court held that a child born outside of wedlock must not be barred from partaking in the sharing of his deceased father's estate.

Acknowledgment or legitimization of a child born out of wedlock:

For a child born out of wedlock to be entitled to partake in the deceased parents bounty, such a child must have been acknowledge by the father as his legitimate child before he died. - Okonkwo v. Okonkwo.







Opatola Victor Esq. is an Abuja based Legal Practitioner.
Adeopatola@gmail.com
07069687425

If you could deal with these few things, I'd appreciate it:


1. In your experience, when it comes to matters of illegitimacy, do people generally prefer settling it based on customary law or constitutional law?

That question aside, the constitutional law seems flawed and has loop-holes through which someone without goodwill can simply work around to his favour.

What the law effectively means is that legitimacy is dependent on a man acknowledging the bastard.
So even if the man is alive when the issue of an illegitimate child comes up...he can simply refuse to acknowledge the child as his own because he won't be forced by the woman accusing him to go for a DNA test unless by court order which is a whole other legal process.


2. What about situations where a woman is the one having an extra-marital affair, got pregnant, and passed off the child as her husbands'?

As there is no provision for this, does it not imply that whenever the husband finds out he has been raising a bastard, that child will automatically lose his/her inheritance because no man will continue acknowledging such a child as his own after finding out the truth, neither will DNA prove him as the father?
Now even if the child decides to go searching for his/her real father, he/she will not be entitled to any inheritance in that family until that man acknowledges him/her as his own.

This is effectively a law that rewards children born to men who cheated on their wives as long as he acknowledges them, but really does nothing for children born to women who cheated on their husbands.

I can't complain...

Thank you for this OP.

Really educative to know the position of the law on this.

"You know nothing Jon Snow"

Inheritance depends on the personality. If u call and see ursef as a bastard, you will get a bastards inheritance but you fight your way through, inheritance will look for you.
Base truth

crackkhaus:
If you could deal with these few things, I'd appreciate it:


1. In your experience, when it comes to matters of illegitimacy, do people generally prefer settling it based on customary law or constitutional law?

That question aside, the constitutional law seems flawed and has loop-holes through which someone without goodwill can simply work around to his favour.

What the law effectively means is that legitimacy is dependent on a man acknowledging the bastard.
So even if the man is alive when the issue of an illegitimate child comes up...he can simply refuse to acknowledge the child as his own because he won't be forced by the woman accusing him to go for a DNA test unless by court order which is a whole other legal process.


2. What about situations where a woman is the one having an extra-marital affair, got pregnant, and passed off the child as her husbands'?

As there is no provision for this, does it not imply that whenever the husband finds out he has been raising a bastard, that child will automatically lose his/her inheritance because no man will continue acknowledging such a child as his own after finding out the truth, neither will DNA prove him as the father?
Now even if the child decides to go searching for his/her real father, he/she will not be entitled to any inheritance in that family until that man acknowledges him/her as his own.

This is effectively a law that rewards children born to men who cheated on their wives as long as he acknowledges them, but really does nothing for children born to women who cheated on their husbands.

I can't complain...

This is effectively a law that rewards children born to men who cheated on their wives as long as he acknowledges them, but really does nothing for children born to women who cheated on their husbands.

If a woman cheats on his husband and has a child.. The child can inherit the woman belonging not the man

babyfaceafrica:

This is effectively a law that rewards children born to men who cheated on their wives as long as he acknowledges them, but really does nothing for children born to women who cheated on their husbands.

If a woman cheats on her husband and has a child.. The child can inherit the woman belonging not the man

True, but I will not talk...

A. An illegitimate child can always inherit. Recently a Judge of the Ibadan High court was confirmed to be the child of Akintola hence entitled to a share of his estate which will be equal to what the legitimate children get.
B. I recently saw a will wherein the Father insisted on DNA before the children bearing his name by his wife can inherit. Meaning he suspected he was rearing a bastard or 2.
Illegitimacy swings both ways from the mother and the father and its delicate. On the fathers part the child can always inherit even if the father doesn't acknowledge him during his life time. The relevant provisions of the administration of estate law will prevail here.
On the mother's part, if the child is found to be a bastard.... Many scenarios may exists.
I. The child may be disinherinted by the supposed father to inherit from his Biological dad. Or
II. It can be argued that since he was acknowledged during the Dads lifetime then he can inherit.
Iii. Lastly he will definitely inherit from the mother.
From more legal tips. Don't forget to Holla..

i1:
A. An illegitimate child can always inherit. Recently a Judge of the Ibadan High court was confirmed to be the child of Akintola hence entitled to a share of his estate which will be equal to what the legitimate children get.
B. I recently saw a will wherein the Father insisted on DNA before the children bearing his name by his wife can inherit. Meaning he suspected he was rearing a bastard or 2.
Illegitimacy swings both ways from the mother and the father and its delicate. On the fathers part the child can always inherit even if the father doesn't acknowledge him during his life time. The relevant provisions of the administration of estate law will prevail here.
On the mother's part, if the child is found to be a bastard.... Many scenarios may exists.
I. The child may be disinherinted by the supposed father to inherit from his Biological dad. Or
II. It can be argued that since he was acknowledged during the Dads lifetime then he can inherit.
Iii. Lastly he will definitely inherit from the mother.
From more legal tips. Don't forget to Holla..

Doesn't that contradict the law and also what is written in the OP?

Even without noting the contradictions, where's the common sense in it?

Are you saying a person can just connive with his mother, walk into the house of a dead man with a claim that he is a child of his from a one-night stand many years ago?

How will this be proven to be true when the man is dead, and how will this person be entitled to an inheritance based on just on this claim?

crackkhaus:

Doesn't that contradict the law and also what is written in the OP?

Even without noting the contradictions, where's the common sense in it?

Are you saying a person can just connive with his mother, walk into the house of a dead man with a claim that he is a child of his from a one-night stand many years ago?

How will this be proven to be true when the man is dead, and how will this person be entitled to an inheritance based on just on this claim?

He who asserts must prove.. The person claiming to be the child of a man is to provide strong cogent evidence that will lead to the sole conclusion that he is the biological son of the Man. The court may even order DNA if required.
The basic gists is even the mum can come and give evidence and if they throw out her testimony then also his claim to paternity also goes.
It is not automatic, the claimant must prove that he is the man's son before the court can grant same..
Pls read this.
https://dnllegalandstyle.com/2018/ladoke-akintola-court-grants-oyo-judge-paternity-right-of-late-premier/

crackkhaus:
If you could deal with these few things, I'd appreciate it:


1. In your experience, when it comes to matters of illegitimacy, do people generally prefer settling it based on customary law or constitutional law?

That question aside, the constitutional law seems flawed and has loop-holes through which someone without goodwill can simply work around to his favour.

What the law effectively means is that legitimacy is dependent on a man acknowledging the bastard.
So even if the man is alive when the issue of an illegitimate child comes up...he can simply refuse to acknowledge the child as his own because he won't be forced by the woman accusing him to go for a DNA test unless by court order which is a whole other legal process.


2. What about situations where a woman is the one having an extra-marital affair, got pregnant, and passed off the child as her husbands'?

As there is no provision for this, does it not imply that whenever the husband finds out he has been raising a bastard, that child will automatically lose his/her inheritance because no man will continue acknowledging such a child as his own after finding out the truth, neither will DNA prove him as the father?
Now even if the child decides to go searching for his/her real father, he/she will not be entitled to any inheritance in that family until that man acknowledges him/her as his own.

This is effectively a law that rewards children born to men who cheated on their wives as long as he acknowledges them, but really does nothing for children born to women who cheated on their husbands.

I can't complain...

1. People generally throw but iron into the fire. They approach first from cultural perspective, but cultural perspective differs according to each custom. The legal perspective is used as a last resort in which the Court will pen ultimately come into the picture.

2. Always look at it from two angles.
a. It is the property of the deceased, he can include anybody in his will to give his property. Anybody, bastard or legitimate child or even his cleaner. So far it is validly included in his will.
b. If he didnt have a will before his death, but he legitimatized the bastard and acknowledge him or her as his child validly, then such a person is his child and will partake in the largess of his property.

If someone work his way to make himself legitimatized, so far the deceased validly did it and fraud or misrepresentation or mistake cannot be proofed in Court then such a person is the child of the deceased.

3. Ours is a partriachical society so legitimization of a Bastard child is that of the father.

4. Where the wife had extra marital affair and pass a basted child off as the legitimate child? In that situation, such a child remains a legitimate child until the contrary is shown or proven; or until the husband disown see that and holds the child to be illegitimate.

5. First, you must see from the position that first of all there cannot be discrimination on the ground that somebody is a bastard as nobody is a bastard under the law, everybody must have a father. The law is not punishing anybody....so far there is valid legitimization. Even where a man knows a child is not his own he can still include him in his will.

Hmmmm!!!!! Just wondering aloud.. do they still call individual/ people bastard(s) in this day and age? I thought it's called 'love child' Besides bastard is a mean word..

crackkhaus:

Doesn't that contradict the law and also what is written in the OP?

Even without noting the contradictions, where's the common sense in it?

Are you saying a person can just connive with his mother, walk into the house of a dead man with a claim that he is a child of his from a one-night stand many years ago?

How will this be proven to be true when the man is dead, and how will this person be entitled to an inheritance based on just on this claim?

Let's understand that there are two positions.

1. Before the alleged father dies he can a knowledge the alleged bastard child as his own child. In such instance the child is now his child and entitled to all his inheritance according to custom. Legitimization doesn't happen after the death of the Father, it must come before.

1(b). Even if the father did not acknowledge and validly legitimatize the child as his child before he dies, once he include the name of the child in his will such child will inherit the property due to him. It doesn't matter whether or not he acknowledges the child before he died or not.


2. There is one fundamental and irrepressible truth: The court will never shut it doors against anybody no matter how frivolous the matter is.

Before or after the father dies, the child or his mother can always approach the Court to declare such child as the legitimate child of the father.



Opatola Victor Esq.
Adeopatola@gmail.com
07069687425

Richy4:
Hmmmm!!!!! Just wondering aloud.. do they still call individual/ people bastard(s) in this day and age? I thought it's called 'love child' Besides bastard is a mean word..

Actually, as stated in the introductory part of my article nobody is a bastard. According to the Law nobody is a bastard.

Everybody has a father. But the word was used here so that readers will understand easily.

i1:

He who asserts must prove.. The person claiming to be the child of a man is to provide strong cogent evidence that will lead to the sole conclusion that he is the biological son of the Man. The court may even order DNA if required.
The basic gists is even the mum can come and give evidence and if they throw out her testimony then also his claim to paternity also goes.
It is not automatic, the claimant must prove that he is the man's son before the court can grant same..
Pls read this.
https://dnllegalandstyle.com/2018/ladoke-akintola-court-grants-oyo-judge-paternity-right-of-late-premier/

My point exactly, thanks for clearing it out.

1. Now in a situation where the man is dead and cannot argue against any claims by the illegitimate child, what does the law consider proof?

DNA can't be gotten from a dead person in Nigeria yet, and the dead person is not alive to acknowledge if he actually had any sexual relationships outside his marriage that would have brought about an illegitimate child.

2. Assuming the man is still alive but refuses to acknowledge the child as his and since the claimant is the one who is meant to prove their claim, how will they go about it?

OpatolaEsq:



1. People generally throw but iron into the fire. They approach first from cultural perspective, but cultural perspective differs according to each custom. The legal perspective is used as a last resort in which the Court will pen ultimately come into the picture.

2. Always look at it from two angles.
a. It is the property of the deceased, he can include anybody in his will to give his property. Anybody, bastard or legitimate child or even his cleaner. So far it is validly included in his will.
b. If he didnt have a will before his death, but he legitimatized the bastard and acknowledge him or her as his child validly, then such a person is his child and will partake in the largess of his property.

If someone work his way to make himself legitimatized, so far the deceased validly did it and fraud or misrepresentation or mistake cannot be proofed in Court then such a person is the child of the deceased.

3. Ours is a partriachical society so legitimization of a Bastard child is that of the father.

4. Where the wife had extra marital affair and pass a basted child off as the legitimate child? In that situation, such a child remains a legitimate child until the contrary is shown or proven; or until the husband disown see that and holds the child to be illegitimate.

5. First, you must see from the position that first of all there cannot be discrimination on the ground that somebody is a bastard as nobody is a bastard under the law, everybody must have a father. The law is not punishing anybody....so far there is valid legitimization. Even where a man knows a child is not his own he can still include him in his will.

That bit in bold is a solid point and thanks for clearing it out.

As the law is right now (which is why I called it flawed if you look at it from a woman's perspective), legitimacy is solely dependent on the man's decision to acknowledge/disown a child born from his own infidelity or from his wifes'.

Provided a man has not denied a bastard child brought in by his wife while alive, the child is entitled to his property by law after his demise.
It makes no difference if he was aware or not if the child is not his, provided he aknowledged that child as his .

eyinjuege:
Provided a man has not denied a bastard child brought in by his wife while alive, the child is entitled to his property by law after his demise.
It makes no difference if he was aware or not if the child is not his, provided he aknowledged that child as his .

What is there to deny if he doesn't know or suspect anything in the first place?

This is why every man must ensure they get DNA testing done on their children right after birth.
It's very necessary.

I doubt there's any man with his full senses intact who will find out he has been raising an adult illegitimate child and not delegitimize him/her from an inheritance.

Like it's only fathers that have properties to give away. As long as he is recognized by the mother, that's enough.