The rightful place of an adopted child is a question that keeps reoccurring in various popular films. I thought it was fiction concocted by a brilliant mind until it happens. This scenario is no joke!

It seemed like a crazy scene from an intriguing Nollywood film, but it wasn't.

I ran out of the courtroom to wash my face believing it was a dream. Perhaps, it was the after-effect of a busy weekend at the famous St. Bottles Cathedral. We were celebrating a glorious new year after a bittersweet 2020.

The matter was listed on the court's docket for a trial that fateful Monday morning.

Funny as it seemed, senior counsel represented both parties. One of the contentious issues was " whether an adopted child had a right of inheritance in an adopter's estate?"

The Claimant's mother had the Defendant out of wedlock. She gave birth to the Defendant as a teenager before marrying the deceased. The deceased, during his lifetime, accepted the said child as his own. He performed all the rights and rituals required under the law.

But trouble began when the second eldest son discovered the document of adoption after their father's death.

And having hated his eldest brother for being so loved by their father during his lifetime, he sought to dislodge him from his inheritance. He contended that the Defendant was not his father's biological child. His anger was that his supposed eldest brother was nothing but a stranger to the family.

The court's atmosphere became tense. Immediately the registrar stood up to call the case. It was crystal clear that the second son is a wealthy gangster. He is the Claimant.

He and his siblings contended that the adopted child is a stranger to the family. His being an adopted child cannot inherit to the exclusion of the biological children.

Does the law preclude an adopted child from inheriting the estate of an adopter?

In this context, do you agree that adoption is quite different from fostering?

What is the position of the law?

Well! Let's find out.

Oh! A lecture thread?

Let me just read then.

Before we proceed, let's consider the provisions of Sections 42(2) and 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) 2010.

Do you know what it entails?

Well! Let's find out.

Section 42(2) of the CFRN provides thus;

"No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely because of the circumstances of his birth."

Therefore, this section presupposes that one can activate the express provision of Section 46 of the Constitution, which empowers such person to approach the court if his/her rights as enshrined in 42(2) is being breached or is about to be breached.

Well! I understand we, as Africans, cherish our customs and traditions. This position begs the question, how has the court applied this provision of the law?

In 2018, the Court of Appeal, Owerri Judicial Division, delivered a judgment on the 12th day of October 2018, wherein the above position of the law was an issue for determination by the court.

I know say you go like know wetin happen for that case. But wait fess, make I top my tea.

uu

Please, permit me to reiterate that there are plethoras of authorities, wherein the court decided that Section 42(2) of the Constitution is sacrosanct and must be upheld.

But what is the position of our customs and traditions in the scheme of events? Are they dead, buried in antiquities, and of no moment?

Well! Let's find out.

In Igbozuruike & Ors Vs Onuador, which was decided in 2015, it was the Court of Appeal's decision that the circumstances of the birth of an individual are no grounds to discriminate against him in sharing or succeeding to the property of a grandmother or mother.

But what happened in Aduba & Ors v. Aduba (2018) LPELR-45756 (CA)?

In this case, the putative parents adopted the Adoptee in 1972 when he was just five years old. Upon adoption, they were issued a certificate of adoption titled "Forster Care Agreement Form."

Facts revealed that the Adoptee was well-received by the putative parents and members of their family. And the Adoptee was baptized with the putative's parents' family name. He was treated as a family child, trained and nurtured by the putative parents as their son.

He grew up with other biological children in the family into Adult-hood. He got married in 1990 and begot his children. They all lived joyfully as one big family, and nobody challenged his status as a member of the family while the putative parents were alive.

After the death of the putative parents, the biological children came up with the idea that the Adoptee was not a family member. They argued that he was a foster child brought into the family and had no right of inheritance in their parents' estate.

It was also alleged that the Adoptee was a stolen child brought into the family by his putative mother.

They, therefore, excluded him in the share of the estate of their father. And he accordingly approached the court to determine his legal rights as enshrined in Section 42(2).

The trial court agreed with him and held that his exclusion in the share of the estate of his putative parents was an infringement of his legal rights.

The court posited that the provision of Section 42(2) protected him against discrimination due to the circumstances of his birth. Therefore, he was entitled to share in the landed property and estate of the putative parents.

While upholding the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed that the contention of the biological children is offensive to the provisions of Section 42 of the Constitution (as amended).
The court also held that their conduct was inequitable, repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience. The court posited that their contention and action were so reprehensible that no Court of law will accede to their whims and caprices.

Their appeal was, therefore, dismissed with substantial cost against them.

Do you agree with the court's decision, or do you think it would have been better to apply the position of the customs and traditions of the deceased adopter?

Assuming without conceding that the child was a product of paternity fraud and DNA subsequently revealed the same, will you hold a different opinion?

In our next discourse, we shall consider the legal right of inheritance of a child whose birth resulted from paternity fraud.

CC: Uboma
olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll

A legally adopted child have equal right with biological child.


A written will will solve all these.

humilitypays:
A legally adopted child have equal right with biological child.


A written will will solve all these.

That's what I thought too.

Did both parents die at the same time?

.

litigator:
Please, permit me to reiterate that there are plethoras of authorities, wherein the court decided that Section 42(2) of the Constitution is sacrosanct and must be upheld.

First, The Law and Courts and Lawyers are a Creation and Establishment made By God for Rightness and All Goodness Only Hence The Doctrine "The Law/The Courts Can Do No Wrong" for they were made to be Good and expected to Remain, Always Good.

But this is now no longer so for today, man has made his own Fake Laws called Constitutions, Statutes etc causing Judges/Lawyers to argue on Rightly and Goodly Settled Matters.

There is No Debate or Argument Under the True Law of Man (Natural Law) that "Every Child, whether Natural Born or Subsequently Acquired, is always Automatically Entitled to Right of Possessing and part-taking in his Parents Goods whether the parents be alive or dead".

As long as the owner of the goods that is, the parents have consented and made a former unknown and strange person, their child.

Which is in exercise of their Full Rights and unfettered Discretion to Dispose their goods by Giving it to Any Person they so desire.

And once this is done, it can not be made undone by anyone.

Thus, No Child or Person can Validly Deprive Another Child of his Rights to take his Parents Goods.

This is the Solid Position of the Law Made by God but men, lawyers and judges have perverted it.