Next of Kin in Nigeria: What Rights Does a Next of Kin Really Have?

Introduction

The expression “next of kin” is one of the most misunderstood legal terms in Nigeria. Many people believe that being named as a person’s next of kin automatically gives them the right to inherit, manage, sell, or sue over the deceased person’s property. Nigerian courts have repeatedly clarified that this belief is incorrect.

Recent judicial decisions have reinforced the distinction between a next of kin and an estate administrator, emphasizing that the two are not synonymous and do not possess the same legal powers.

Who Is a Next of Kin?

The Court of Appeal in JOSEPH v. FAJEMILEHIN O. O & ANOR (2012) LPELR-9849(CA) (Pp 34 – 34 Paras A – B) defined a next of kin thus:

A “next-of-kin”, by definition, is the person declared to be the nearest of kindred to the declarant, in this case the 2nd Respondent. See Black’s Law Dictionary and Chambers 20th Century English Dictionary.”

Being named as a next of kin is therefore primarily an identification mechanism. It does not automatically confer ownership rights over a person’s assets.

Does a Next of Kin Automatically Inherit a Deceased Person’s Property?

The answer is no.

In DASHE v. DAVID &ANOR (2025) LPELR-81124(CA) (Pp 38 – 38 Paras B – E), the Court of Appeal held that:

“it is not the law that the position of a Next of Kin conferred on the 1st Respondent with any right of inheritance, or with the sole right to apply and obtain Letter of Administration over the Estate of the deceased. At best, therefore, in law, a next of kin is described as the nearest blood relative of a person. See Joseph V. Fajemilehin & Anor (2012) LPELR-9849 (CA). In law, being named a Next of Kin alone does not confer any such right for merely being the closest relative of the deceased, which is all that next of kin signifies in law, and therefore, a person in his lifetime can appoint any person as his Next of Kin.”

Likewise, in MOHAMMED v. TIJANI (2021) LPELR-54215(CA)(Pp 19 – 20 Paras E – A),the Court of Appeal stated that:

“With the clear position of the law that next-of-kinship simpliciter, will not guarantee a bequeathal of an intestate deceased’s property upon the person who claims to be the next-of-kin to the said deceased, it follows that appellant’s father by being the next-of-kin to his late intestate brother, thereby inherited nothing of his said late brother’s (Yusuf Ndakwo) estate.”

Consequently, being listed as next of kin does not make a person the owner or beneficiary of a deceased person’s estate.

Who Has Authority to Administer a Deceased Person’s Estate?

Where a person dies intestate (without a valid will), the law requires the issuance of Letters of Administration to an appointed Estate Administrator before anyone can formally administer the estate.

The Court of Appeal in AKPUNONO v. LABARAN & ORS (2024) LPELR-73293(CA) (Pp 25 – 26 Paras E – C)reaffirmed that an administrator occupies a position of trust and owes duties to all beneficiaries of the estate. The Court stated thus:

“In the case of Dauda Mohd V. Aminu Tijani (2021) LPELR-54215 (CA), it was held:
“What is the Next of Kin or An Estate Administrator as contended by the Appellant? In Monyelu Ugolo vs. Chizoba N. Odiama (2019) LPELR-47168 (CA), this Court held per Omar, JCA at page 19, paras. E-F thus: “To my mind, the appointment of an Administrator to manage a deceased’s estate is a position of trust in that the trustee renders account of his stewardship to the other beneficiaries.” See also the case of Abdulkadir Aliyu & Ors. vs. Intercontinental Bank Plc & Anor (2013) LPELR-20716 (CA), where this Court also held per Abiru, JCA at page 38 para. C thus: “One of the duties of the Administrators of an estate is to ascertain and pay the just debts of the estate.” Per AGUBE, JCA (Pp. 42-43, paras.C-A).It is trite that an Administrator of an estate owes a duty, a huge one at that to himself and other beneficiaries to account. See Anumegbe V. Anumegbe (2024) LPELR-23996 (CA) Pp. 43-45 Paras A-E.”

An administrator therefore acts as a fiduciary and must always act in the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries.

Does an Estate Administrator Become the Owner of the Estate?

Another common misconception is that a person who obtains Letters of Administration automatically becomes the owner of the deceased’s property. Nigerian law does not support this position.

In AKPUNONO v. LABARAN & ORS (supra) at (Pp. 26-27, Paras. D-E), the Court of Appeal held:

“In the case of Amos V. Irabor & Ors (2021) LPELR-54871 (CA) it was held: “Another aspect that has to be examined is the fact that the 2nd & 3rd Defendants went further to obtain letters of administration, this is under the probate law of Edo State which imposes obligations on them as regards the estate that is administered. See Aya v Nkanu & Anor (2015) LPELR-40282 on whether an administrator benefits from the estate he administers; “One does not become a beneficiary of an estate simply by virtue of the grant of Letters of Administration. Rather, Letters of Administration confer authority on the administrator to deal with the estate property on behalf of the beneficiaries. Ibrahim v. Osunde (2009) 6 NWLR (PT 1137) 382, (2009) LPELR-1411(SC), Olowu v. Olowu (1994) LPELR-14545(CA). The administrator of an Estate may not necessarily be a beneficiary as well. Therefore, as rightly held by the learned trial Judge, “…the issue of claiming ownership of the building in dispute because of the Letters of Administration does not arise.” Per Otisi, J.C.A (P. 17, PARAS. B – E). In line with the above, can the 5th & 2nd Defendant’s claim ownership of what they are to administer, see also Otudor v Otudor (2011) LPELR-4085 where the Court held that even if you are the only child and an administrator you cannot claim as an administrator but as a child.” Per Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA (Pp. 20-21, para B).”

The position of the Court makes it clear that the grant of Letters of Administration merely authorises the administrator to administer the estate. It does not confer ownership of the estate or make the administrator a beneficiary merely by reason of the grant.

Can a Next of Kin Sell or Transfer a Deceased Person’s Property?

Generally, no. A person does not acquire the legal authority to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a deceased person’s property merely because he or she is the next of kin. Nigerian courts have consistently held that such authority belongs to the personal representative of the deceased, namely, an executor or an administrator duly clothed with probate or Letters of Administration.

In KAAVE v. IYONKYOH & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61751(CA)(Pp. 66-71, Paras. D-B), the Court of Appeal held:

“On the evidence as in the Record of Appeal, it seems very clear to me that Exhibit JS16, executed by a ’Next of Kin”, the wife of the alleged deceased owner, in favour of the Appellant was invalid, and the lower Court was therefore right in its finding that Exhibit JS16 lacked any probative weight or value as a document of title in favour of the Appellant over the land in dispute. In law, Exhibit JS16, having been issued by the next of kin to the alleged late owner lacks validity and legality as a document of title. This is so because in law, a next of kin, whoever he or she may be, lacks the capacity of an administrator to deal with the estate of the deceased.

Who then is a next of kin in law, and is it synonymous with administrator of an estate of a deceased? A next of kin is simply a person’s closest relative. So, does a next of kin have the powers to deal with the estate of a deceased person by the mere fact of being a next of kin? I think not! Thus, the Donor in Exhibit JS16, even though admittedly the wife of the late Col. Agbayi, the alleged owner, at the time she donated the Irrevocable Power of Attorney to the Appellant, she had neither the legal nor any interest in the land in dispute to donate by way of an ‘Irrevocable Power of Attorney’ to the Appellant, being not the legal administrator of the Estate of her late husband, the late Col. Agbayi. The law is ‘nemo date quod non habet’, and therefore, a person cannot give out what he does not have. Thus, at the time she purported to convey the land in dispute by means of an irrevocable power of attorney, as in Exhibit JS16, to the Appellant, she had no such capacity or any proprietary interest in the said land to convey or sell to the Appellant. In law, therefore, such an exercise was one done in futility and to that effect, amounted to a nullity and of no legal effect whatsoever. See Okelola V. Adeleke (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 890) 307 @ pp. 323 – 324. See also Anyi & Ors V. Akande & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41973 (CA), per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA.

In the final analysis, I think, and I so firmly hold, that the lower Court was right when it declined to ascribe any probative value to Exhibit JS16 on the grounds in law in the absence of any authority to act, the Donor in Exhibit JS16 acted without authority and also that the Exhibit JS16 cannot have much weight in proving the alleged title of the Appellant to the land in dispute in view of the curiosities and doubts surrounding the date of its execution. In law, it is not enough merely for a Donor to be the wife and next of kin of a deceased owner of land to empower her to convey or dispose of interest or title in such a land as she must go further to show in the recital the proper legal capacity either by virtue of letters of administration or a legal administrator without a will. The Donor in Exhibit JS16 was not clothed in either letters of administration with or without a ‘Will’.

The Appellant was not just a Defendant before the lower Court but he was also a Counter-Claimant who had pleaded and relied on the production of document of title as his root of title to the land in dispute counter-claimed by him against the Respondents, and for which he tendered Exhibit JS16 in evidence and had also called DW2, the daughter of the Donor in Exhibit JS16 to give evidence on his behalf and in support of his alleged root of title to the land in dispute. I thought, I should pause here to reiterate that in law, the mere production of an instrument of grant such as Exhibit JS16, even if it were to be found as valid, does not automatically vest title in the producer of such a document of grant but the document must be shown to have been duly executed, be genuine and valid. In this wise, even mere registration of such a title document, which is defective otherwise, cannot cure or validate a defective title to land. See AG. Oyo State & Anor V. Fairlakes Hotels Ltd & Anor (1989) LPELR – 625 (SC). See also Romaine V. Romaine (1992) JELR – 43127 (SC).

On the evidence led by the parties, as in Records of Appeal, it is my view, and I so firmly hold, that the findings by the lower Court were arrived at after a very dispassionate evaluation of the entirety of the evidence as led by both sides and finding preponderance and belief in the Respondents’ case than the case of the Appellant. These findings do flow from the proven evidence before the lower Court. Thus, the Appellant was without any colour of valid right or title to the land in dispute. See Gankon V. Ugochukwu Chemical Ind. Ltd (1993) 6NWLR (Pt. 297) 55. See also Anyi & Ors V. Akande & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41973 (CA), per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA; Carrena V. Akinlase (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1107) @ p. 262; Aromire V. Awoyemi (1972,) 2 SC 1; Kareem V. Ogunde (1972)1 SC 182. The Appellant was certainly not a prudent buyer of land. This is so because transactions involving sale of land is not like buying goods off the shelf of a Supermarket. It involves patience and painstaking enquiries, particularly more so where from the word go an intending purchaser is faced with the fact of the death of the alleged owner of the land. It should set such an intending buyer on caution and a deeper and more incisive enquiry as to the validity or bona fide of the transaction he is about going into rather than rush headlong into such an opaque transaction in the name of buying the landed property of a deceased person through his relatives. See Anyi & Ors V. Akande & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41973 (CA).”

The decision serves as a caution to purchasers who acquire property from relatives of deceased persons without verifying whether such relatives possess Letters of Administration or other lawful authority.

Can a Next of Kin Sue on Behalf of a Deceased Person’s Estate?

As a general rule, an action concerning the estate of a deceased person must be commenced or defended by the executor, trustee, or administrator of the estate. A person who merely describes himself or herself as the next of kin does not, without more, have the legal capacity to sue or be sued on behalf of the estate.

In UNION BANK v. MKENA (2019) LPELR-47197(CA) (Pp. 14–21, Paras. B–F), the Court of Appeal held:

“It is not a fact in dispute that the Respondent, as Plaintiff before the lower Court, sued the Respondent/Defendant as: “Ker Mkena (Suing as next of kin of the late Dr. Terlumun Mkena)”. Therefore, the bone of contention is whether the suit before the lower Court was competent having been so initiated. By a long line of decided cases, it is incontrovertible that where a party purports to bring an action in respect of the estate of a deceased person, in order to be competent, such an action must be instituted by the Trustee, Executor or Administrator of the Estate, and no other. In the case of The Administrators/Executors of the Estate of General Sani Abacha (Deceased) V Eke-Spiff (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 467) 1, 21, D-F, & 31, D-E the Supreme Court held inter alia as follows: “I go further to say that a person does not have the locus standi, indeed, he lacks the competence to bring an action in a representative capacity as an administrator of the estate of a deceased person until he has been granted the letters of administration. If he brought the action before the grant, such grant has no retroactive validity. Similarly, a person, who as a plaintiff has no legal power to sue another person as an administrator or executor of an estate of a deceased person without naming the person of such an administrator or executor on the writ and ascertaining that Letters of Administration or Probate as the case may be, thus legally empowering that person sued to administer the estate of the deceased, was obtained prior to the initiation of the suit… This is because a person has no locus standi and lacks competence to bring an action in a representative capacity as an administrator of the estate of the deceased person until he has been granted the Letters of Administration… Similarly, a person who has not applied for nor granted letters of administration authorizing him to administer the estate of a deceased person, cannot defend any action against the estate of the deceased. In other words, it is the grant of the letters of administration that confers the right to sue or be sued in the name of the estate of a deceased person.”

“Thus, for a person to be competent to institute an action in respect of the estate of a deceased person, or even to defend an action commenced against the estate of a deceased, he must be an Administrator or Trustee or Executor of the estate, who has been granted Letters of Administration in that regard to administer the estate. Any other person would lack the requisite locus standi to initiate or sustain an action in respect of the estate. In the instant case as aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the Plaintiff (now Respondent) commenced this action as “the next of kin” of the Late Dr. Terlumun Mkena. It goes without saying that such a standing cannot vest the Plaintiff with the requisite capacity to sue. However, notwithstanding the nomenclature used by the Plaintiff, the Respondent proceeded to spell out the actual capacity in which he instituted the action in his Statement of Claim. For ease of reference, paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof are set out hereunder: 3. “The plaintiff at all material times is the next of kin of the late Dr. Terlumun Mkena who died intestate sometime in 2006 and was issued letters of administration by the High Court of Justice, Benue State sometime in 2007 to administer the estate including account number 2031010015543 with the defendant. The letters of administration are hereby pleaded. 4. The plaintiff avers that following the discovery of other funds in the said account, the plaintiff on request to the defendant issued an inventory of the amount in the account, processed at the registry of the same Court for a further grant of letters of administration in the sum of N755, 876.68 which the plaintiff paid the sum of N75, 500.00 representing 10% as fees for issuance of letters of administration. The inventory, further grant and official receipt are hereby pleaded.”(Emphasis supplied)?

Even though the Appellant filed her Statement of Defence in response, with the leave of Court, no evidence whatsoever was adduced in respect of the averments therein as the Appellant rested her case on the case of the Plaintiff. The averments in the Statement of Defence filed are therefore deemed abandoned. Subsequently during the trial, the Plaintiff, as PW1, tendered both the initial Letters of Administration and the further Letters of Administration granted to him by the Benue State High Court of Justice, and they are in evidence as Exhibits A and A1. By these two sets of Letters of Administration, the Respondent, as the next of kin of late Dr. Terlumun Mkena, was made the Administrator of the estate of the deceased, Dr. Terlumun Mkena. No evidence whatsoever was adduced to controvert these pieces of evidence.

Therefore, the emphasis placed by the Appellant on the fact that the Respondent sued as “the next of kin” is immaterial in view of the pleadings, substantiated by both oral and documentary evidence disclosing that even as the next of kin, he was properly clothed with the requisite capacity to sue having been granted Letters of Administration to administer the estate of his father (the account of late Dr, Terlumun Mkena with the Appellant inclusive) twice. Therefore, on the peculiar facts of the case, the issue made by the Appellant on the description of the Respondent as “the next of kin” borders on technicality, the Respondent having fully established the capacity in which he instituted the action. The integrity of the evidence in this regard, to wit: the Letters of Administration was not impugned. Therefore, the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted when he held that the Letters of Administration, Exhibits A and A1, made the Plaintiff the Administrator of the estate of Dr. Terlumun Mkena.

In addition, Order 13 Rule 11 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Benue State, 2007 provides –

“Trustees, executors and administrators may sue or be sued on behalf of or as representing the property or estate of which they are trustees or representatives, without joining any of the persons beneficiary interested in the trust or estate, and shall be considered as representing such person, but a Judge may, at any stage of the proceedings order any of such persons to be made parties in addition to or in lieu of the previously existing parties. This Rule shall apply to trustees, executors and administrators in proceedings to enforce a security by foreclosure or otherwise.”

By virtue of this Rule of Court and the law as set down in decided cases, a grantee of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of a deceased has the right to sue and be sued. What is important is the legal standing which vests in a party the capacity to approach the Court, and not the way in which he chooses to describe himself. Thus, in my humble view, the description of the Plaintiff as “the next of kin” of the Estate of the late Dr. Terlumun Mkena on his Court processes, is merely superfluous and does not in any way detract from the fact that he was properly clothed with locus standi to institute the action, having been granted Letters of administration before he did so.

As was earlier pointed out, the Appellant neither adduced any evidence to substantiate her defence nor did she controvert in any way the fact that the Respondent was granted Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of late Dr. Terlumun Mkena. Her bone of contention is simply the description of the Respondent as “the next of kin” of the Estate of the late Dr. Terlumun Mkena. To succumb to the argument of the Appellant in the light of the existence of the Letters of Administration, Exhibits A and A1, disclosing the capacity in which the Respondent filed the action and thus clothing him with locus standi, is to sacrifice substance on the altar of technicality. The learned trial Judge therefore acted commendably when he declined the invitation to do so. The days of technical justice are long since gone and forgotten; substantial justice must prevail over technical justice. The Appellant does not dispute the amount standing to the account of the late Dr. Terlumun Mkena domiciled with it; neither does she dispute that the Respondent was granted the requisite Letters of Administration which enabled him to administer the estate left behind by his deceased father as well as to take legal action on behalf of the estate. Instead, she decided to embark on nitpicking in respect of the description of the Respondent as his deceased father’s next of kin. This is unwarranted and the Respondent will not be indulged by this Court. Thus, for all the afore-stated reasons, I decline the invitation to interfere with the well-considered Judgment of the lower Court.”

The key lesson is that what matters is not the label attached to a party but whether the party possesses the legal authority required to represent the estate.

The Supreme Court’s Position on the Role of a Next of Kin

The Supreme Court has comprehensively explained the legal position of a next of kin and corrected the widespread misconception that being named as a next of kin automatically entitles a person to inherit or administer a deceased person’s estate.

In IRONBAR v. FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD (2024) LPELR-62186(SC) (Pp. 44–56, Paras. F–D), the Supreme Court held:

“It may be important at this point to consider the capacity as “next of kin” in which the Appellant principally sued. The term, next of kin has been described as the nearest blood relative of a person. See JOSEPH v FAJEMILEHIN O.O & Anor (2012) LPELR-9849(CA). The term can also refer to a person who can be contacted or notified in cases of emergencies or eventualities. For instance, one of the forms that is usually filled while in transit or in hospitals, requires the information of next of kin. This is needed in case of any accident or death. In other words, where there is an accident or death involving that person, his next of kin shall be notified or informed.

The BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY defines the phrase “next of kin” to mean a person or persons most closely related to a deceased by blood, consanguinity or affinity. In other words one’s next of kin is one’s relative. It also defines the phrase “next of kin” to mean an intestate’s heirs – that is, the person or persons who may be entitled to inherit personal property from a deceased who has not left a will. In other words a “next of kin” is a family member or one’s relative. The phrase gained popularity during the colonial era because the foreign administrators needed to indicate their “next of kin” in the various forms they filled to ensure that if they died in the colonies, the British government could contact the family through their next of kin as indicated in the employee records.

Also, the term is constantly put into use by hospitals. In this case, next of kin means a person who can make medical decisions for a person who is incapacitated or unable to do so, during emergencies. The term is also frequently used in financial documents by banks and other financial institutions. In this instance, next of kin means a person who can ensure that the proper steps are taken towards the recovery of the money held at the bank, at the demise of the owner. In other words, being a next of kin of a person, as regards his money in the bank, does not give a right to inherit such money, either partly or as a whole, it just gives the right to contact the bank and ensure that the money is safe to be properly distributed by the law governing the estate of the deceased.

It must be noted that appointment of a next of Kin is not a substitute to the making of a valid WILL. The reason is because, when a person dies testate (that is, the person made a valid Will), the matter of next of kin is of no relevance. The estate of a deceased person who dies testate is distributed strictly according to the Will. Thus, his next of kin will only be entitled to his estate, if the WILL says so.

On the other hand, in a situation where the deceased died intestate (that is, without making a valid Will), the question of the distribution of his estate is governed by the law. The customary law/Islamic law or the Administration of Estates Law will apply depending on the kind of marriage contracted by the deceased. In other words, if the deceased contracted a statutory marriage (popularly known as Court marriage), the distribution of his estate shall be governed by either the English Law or the Administration of Estate Law. When a person dies intestate, his property, both real and choses in action become vested in the Chief Judge of the state until the Probate Registrar issues Letters of Administration to his heirs and successors in title to administer the estate. In the meantime, the law allows his children or beneficiaries or successors to secure the estate pending the issuance of Letters of Administration which the Appellant sought to do in this case. See OBUZEZ V OBUZEZ (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 430. It must be noted that the Administration of Estate Law provides for the order of inheritance which must be complied with strictly and a next of kin, is not among the categories of those entitled to inheritance in this instance.

The meaning and the legal implication of the term “next of kin” have been constantly misunderstood by the ordinary public. It appears, though erroneously, that many people think that once you are appointed the next of kin of a person, it automatically gives you the right to inherit the person’s estate upon his demise. In fact, many people think that a next of kin gives an exclusive right over a deceased’s property.

The above erroneous belief and lack of understanding of the term “next of Kin” has made many people to shy away from the need to make a Will. This is because, they think appointing a Next of Kin, is a way of naming their beneficiary. However, the above assumption is not in conformity with the law.

In other words, succession is regulated by law. It is only those entitled by law to inherit a deceased person’s estate that can do so. A next of Kin is not one of such persons. However, this is without prejudice to his right to inherit on a personal ground. Thus, if the person so named as a next of kin is the son of the deceased, he is entitled to inherit, not as a next of kin, but because he is the son of the deceased. Also, if the person so named as a next of kin, is also named in a valid Will made by the deceased, he is entitled to an inheritance not because he is a next of kin, rather because he is named in the will.

Some banks, pension fund administrators, registrars, employers, and insurance companies usually insist they would only attend to next of kin for claims to a deceased person’s estate. They ignorantly exhibit this faulty preference for next of kin in their list of requirements on their various websites and other platforms.

Sadly, this ignorance is boldly implemented by the processing staff. They refuse superior legal education on the laws and their application. Some of them would further refuse to attend to, give, or release relevant documents required for estate claims because the personal representatives are not named as next of kin in their record of the deceased regardless of the personal representatives presenting Letters of Administration and grant of probate. This is considered by most personal representatives and beneficiaries as one of the downsides of the process of claiming the estate of a deceased. In Nigeria, a person’s assets also referred to as “estate of a deceased”, may be held temporarily by institutions; like banks for monies in the bank, pension fund administrators for pensions, registrars for securities, retirement benefits by employers, and insurance companies for some insurance policies. Usually, these assets, in whole or in part, are released to the owner while he or she is alive, at his or her request. When the owner dies, the assets are released to his or her personal representative(s) in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws. For instance, Part 1, Sections 1 to 4 of the Administration of Estates Act, and Part 2, Sections 3(1) to 3(3) of the Administration of Estate Law of Lagos State provide that all property in which a deceased person was entitled to an interest not ceasing on his death shall, on his death and notwithstanding any testamentary disposition thereof, devolve from time to time on the personal representatives of the deceased. Section 53(1) of the Administration of Estates Act states that where the intestate during his lifetime takes out a life insurance policy or contributes to any social security scheme, superannuation fund, or provident fund, the right to the benefit of such insurance policy, social security scheme, superannuation fund, or provident fund shall devolve on the personal representatives as part of the estate of the intestate. Section 8 of the Pension Reform Act 2014 provides that where an employee dies, his entitlements under the life insurance policy maintained under Section 4(5) of this Act shall be paid by an underwriter to the named beneficiary in line with Section 57 of the Insurance Act. Upon receipt of a valid will admitting probate or Letters of Administration confirming the beneficiaries under the estate of the deceased employee, the pension fund administrator shall, with the approval of the commission, release the amount standing in the retirement savings account of the deceased to the personal representatives or to any other person as may be directed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of the will or personal law of the deceased employee, as the case may be. Section 263(1) of the Investment and Security Act 2007 provides that if within six months of the death of a person who was entitled to a registered bond or securities, the nominal or face value of which does not in the aggregate exceed N5,000, probate of the will or Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased person is not produced to the registrar, the registrar may, after such inquiry as he may deem necessary, determine which person is entitled to such bond or securities. All the above simply implies that ”personal representatives” shall be the representatives of the deceased with regard to any property to which he was entitled to an interest not ceasing on his death. ?Section 2 of the Administration of Estates Act of Lagos State indicates that “personal representative” means the executor, original or by representation, or the administrator for the time being of a deceased person. Section 3(2) confirms that personal representatives for the time being of a deceased person are deemed in law to be his heirs and assigns within the meaning of all trusts and powers. Section 1 of the Administration of Estates Law states that the personal representatives of a deceased person shall personally be under a duty to collect and act on the estate of the deceased and administer it in accordance with the law. In Section 58, “administration” means, with reference to the estate of a deceased person, Letters of Administration, whether general or limited, or with the will annexed or otherwise; “administrator” means a person to whom administration is granted. Person(s) recognised by law that could benefit from the estate of the deceased are referred to as ”beneficiaries”, and according to the second schedule of the Administration of Estates Law, the wife, husband, children, parent, siblings, and grandchildren are recognised as probable beneficiaries where there is no will. Where there is a will, the beneficiaries would be the named persons against a named asset. ?In the instant case, it is established that the Appellant was the son of the deceased. Although, there is no sufficient evidence before the Court to show that he was the closest living relative of the deceased, however in the instant case, no member of the Appellant’s family objected to his capacity to sue on behalf of the deceased as next of kin or representative of the family. It is my opinion that the best person to challenge the authority of the Appellant would have been his own siblings or relatives. The Court below rightly found on page 139 of the record as follows: “If his statement of claim had been properly couched describing fully his interest in the said property and how it devolved on him, after his father’s demise, even without obtaining Letters of Administration, he would have availed himself of the law. For instance, in OTUKPO v. JOHN (2000) 8 NWLR Pt. 669 P. 507 it was stated that it is right that before the grant of Letters of Administration, the children of the deceased should protect the property of their deceased father so as to avoid waste. If he had simply sued as the next of kin of his deceased father in respect of the property alone, when letters of administration had not been obtained, that would have also yielded a favourable result. In the case of UDO v. WILLIAM (1997) 1 NWLR PART 438 p. 548, EJIWUNMI JCA (as he then was) at p. 560 referred to the Supreme Court case of Menkiti v. Agina (1965) NWLR 127 where the plaintiff claimed as next of kin of the deceased for possession and injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing, it was held that the Plaintiff had the capacity to sue as she did not give a wrong description of herself.” ?It is evident that the Court below was on a proper standing and correctly stated the position of the law in connection with the extant issue. It is astonishing that after this sound reasoning by the Court below, the Court below still went ahead to strike out the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant did not sue specifically as the next of kin of his deceased father. The Court below rightly found that even before the grant of Letters of Administration, the Appellant had a right to protect the property of his deceased father so as to avoid waste. To my mind, this statement settles the appeal. By a cursory look at the principal reliefs on the writ of summons at page 1 of the record, it is obvious that all the Appellant sought at the trial Court was to protect the property of his deceased father. The said reliefs are hereunder reproduced: i. INJUNCTION restraining the defendant, its agents, servants and/or assigns from meddling by way of sale, take over or howsoever with late Chief Orok Ita Orok’s property at Odukpani Road, Calabar registered as 96/96/62 of the Lands Registry, Calabar. ii. AN ORDER that the Plaintiff has already cleared Late Chief Orok Ita Orok’s indebtedness to the defendant through all the lodgments made since the late Chief’s demise. Thus, the Appellant is quite qualified to sue as the next of kin or the representative of the deceased who was his father in order to secure the estate of his family for the benefit of the family.”

Key Takeaways

The following principles emerge clearly from the authorities:

1. A next of kin is generally the closest relative or designated contact person of an individual.
2. Being named as next of kin does not automatically confer inheritance rights.
3. A next of kin does not become the owner of a deceased person’s assets merely by virtue of that designation.
4. A next of kin cannot ordinarily sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of estate property unless legally authorized.
5. The legal authority to administer an intestate estate comes from Letters of Administration.
6. Executors and administrators, not next of kin simpliciter, are the recognised personal representatives of a deceased person’s estate.
7. An administrator owes fiduciary duties to beneficiaries and must account for the management of the estate.

Conclusion

Nigerian appellate courts have consistently distinguished between a next of kin and an estate administrator. While a next of kin may be the closest relative of a deceased person, that status alone does not confer ownership, inheritance rights, or authority to administer estate assets.

Anyone seeking to manage, transfer, or litigate over a deceased person’s estate should first ensure that the appropriate legal authority has been obtained through probate or Letters of Administration. Failure to do so may render transactions invalid and legal proceedings incompetent.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Estate administration issues are often fact-specific and may be affected by applicable statutory, customary, or Islamic law. Readers are advised to seek professional legal advice regarding their particular circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained in this article.

If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Instagram
• LinkedIn
• Mail
• Telegram
• WhatsApp