Trust (8)
"The Court would only imply or presume resulting trust based on facts but not in vacuous or speculation. The presumption, where there appears to be some facts, is rebuttable by evidence of the proof of actual intention of the purchaser or the consistency of documents before the Court as demonstrated by the Supreme Court in MADU V MADU (Supra). It is only where there is no evidence that contradicts such presumption, that the presumption of resulting trust will prevail. See the case of UGHUTEVBE V SHONOWO (2004) 6-7SC P. 1." VINCENT ORJIAKOR & ANOR v. MRS. COMFORT MBACHU & ANOR(2019) LPELR-47713(CA)Per UMAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 53-54, Paras. F-B)
FACTS:
"It is correct, as submitted by the Appellants' counsel, that Implied Trusts are exempted from the formalities required for the creation and disposition of an express trust. This is simply due to the fact that such trusts are implied from the conduct of the parties without the concerted actions of the settlor to constitute an express trust. Consequently, there are no formal requirements for its creation. See the case of JOLUGBO & ANOR V AINA (2016) LPELR- 40352 (CA). This does not however dispense with the burden on the Appellants to prove the material facts upon which the Court would presume the existence of trust in the circumstance of this case." VINCENT ORJIAKOR & ANOR v. MRS. COMFORT MBACHU & ANOR(2019) LPELR-47713(CA) Per UMAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 55-56, Paras. D-A)
FACTS:
"...This issue revolves around the understanding between Late Agabus Mbachu and Late Gabriel Orjiakor in the course of the business relationship between the duos. The parties are in agreement that the former was an apprentice of the latter. The controversy between the parties was whether as at the time the apprenticeship ceased there was any understanding between the parties on the management and control of the proceeds of the business of Gabriel Orjiakor.
"Therefore, whatever approach one makes to this case, it is inescapable to conclude that the defendant was a trustee when at the relevant time, he embarked on reconstruction of the property in dispute and as a trustee he must conduct the business of the trust as men of ordinary prudence and vigilance would do. As Jessel, M.R, observed in In Re Speight 22 Ch.D 727, 739-740: "In the first place, I think we ought to consider what is the liability of a trustee who undertakes an office which requires him to make an investment on behalf of his cestui que trust.
"Conduct which is detrimental to the execution of the trust, and whether misconduct or maladministration has been proved against a trustee may range from criminal conduct to mere moral turpitude -See Letterstedt v. Brooers (1884) 9 App. Cas. 371, 386. The conduct may not constitute an actual breach of trust, yet it could be sufficient to ground his removal -See Moore v. MGlynn (1894) 1 I. R. 74. Misconduct need not amount to dishonesty or criminal conduct to ground removal." HON. JUSTICE ADENEKAN ADEMOLA & ANOR. V. CHIEF HAROLD SODIPO & ORS.(1992) LPELR-122(SC)Per KARIBI WHYTE, J.S.C. (Pp.64-65, paras. G-B)
"The Court has a discretion to relieve a Trustee who has acted honestly and reasonably of personal liability for breach of trust. The trial Court, in this case, exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed this exercise of discretion. I have not been persuaded that the discretion was exercised under a mistake of law or in disregard of principles or under a misapprehension of the facts or that irrelevant matter were taken into account or that it occasioned any injustice.-Awani v. Erejuwa II (1976) 11 S.C. 307, 315: Omadide v. Adajeroh (1976) 12 S.C. 87, 96.
"The Court has a discretion to relieve a Trustee who has acted honestly and reasonably of personal liability for breach of trust. The trial Court, in this case, exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant. The Court of Appeal affirmed this exercise of discretion. I have not been persuaded that the discretion was exercised under a mistake of law or in disregard of principles or under a misapprehension of the facts or that irrelevant matter were taken into account or that it occasioned any injustice.-Awani v. Erejuwa II (1976) 11 S.C. 307, 315: Omadide v. Adajeroh (1976) 12 S.C. 87, 96.
"I agree with Mr. Ogunde. Section 29 of the Trustees Law of Ogun State which empowers the Court to remove a private trustee does not set such a high standard as the learned Chief Judge seemed to have done. Section 29 reads: "The Court may removed a private trustee if the Court is satisfied that the continuance of the existing trustee in office may be detrimental to the execution of the trust notwithstanding that misconduct or maladministration has not been proved against him." Misconduct amounting to dishonesty or crime need not be proved before a Court can exercise its power under section 29." HON. JUSTICE ADENEKAN ADEMOLA & ANOR. V. CHIEF HAROLD SODIPO & ORS.(1992) LPELR-122(SC) Per OGUNDARE, J.S.C. (P. 57, paras. B-E)