Jarinatu Folawiyo & Ors V. Rufai Belo Folawiyo & Ors (1944)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Interpretation of Will—Limited and general use of the word ” children ” in various clauses.
Belo Folawiyo provided in clause 2 of his Will that his trustees should let the property specified in that clause arid distribute the rents among his ” sons and daughters hereinafter mentioned “. In clauses 3 and 4 he provided that his trustees should hold certain houses for the benefit of his ” children ” for life. And in clause 7 he named the appellants and two others as his ” children for the purposes of distribution under this Will “.
It was agreed that Belo Folawiyo was the father of all the parties in the suit. The respondents were not named in clause 7 ; they claimed that though clause 7 cut them out of the distribution under clause 2, it did not affect their right to a share under clauses 3 and 4. This view was adopted by the trial Court against the contention of the appellants. On appeal :-
Held, that the word ” distribution ” in clauses 2 and 7 and the words ” sons and daughters hereinafter mentioned ” in clause 2, showed that the word ” children ” in clause 7 was limited to the provisions of clause 2, Whilst ” children ” in clauses 3 and 4 was intended to he general and comprised them all in regard to these two clauses.
Appeal by defendants from judgment of Supreme Court. Philip Oddie for Appellants.
E. A. Akerele for Respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by the President :—
This Appeal raises the question of the correct interpretation of certain clauses in the last will and testament of Belo Folawiyo deceased, agreed for the purposes of argument to be the father of all parties to the suit.