PATERNITY OF A CHILD: WHO IS A LEGITIMATE CHILD???

(OBASOHAN v. OBASOHAN (2019) LPELR-47187) by Carrington Omokaro, Esq

Counsel for Plaintiff at trial court/ Respondent at the Court of Appeal – OLAYIWOLA AFOLABI, ESQ (NOW S.A.N)

Facts
Plaintiff/Respondent (Julius “Osarenoma” Obasohan) claimed that he is entitled to inherit his father’s igiogbe as the first son…Defendant/Appellant (Henry Obasohan) claimed to be entitled to inherit the igiogbe as first son.

Initially, the property in dispute was shared 60/40 (Appellant(60)/Respondent (40) by the family members which seemed to have been accepted. However, the appellant went to the oba’s Palace to complain that he was denied his inheritance. The Palace reversed the sharing and stated that it was the appellant that was entitled to the entire igiogbe. It is apposite to note that the Respondent did not receive any summons from the Palace. It was after the decision of the Palace that he became aware. Hence he went to court.

DECISION OF COURT
Customary Abitration
The Court of appeal affirmed the findings and decision of the trial cour, holding that the customary arbitration pleaded by the appellant was inconclusive due to the fact that

1. Voluntarily submission to the customary arbitration by the Oba of Benin was not pleaded.
2. Agreement to be bound by the alleged customary arbitration was not pleaded.
3. The award by the customary arbitrator was not published.
   Also evidence was led to show that the respondent was summoned hence there was no agreement to submit.

PATERNITY
The trial court held that “Acts of a putative father sufficient to prove paternity have been held to include paying of hospital bills, upkeep of the child and upholding the child to his family as his child etc.”

It was found as a fact that Throughout the length and breath of defendant’s evidence there was nothing to show that late Julius “Edomwonyi” Obasohan cared for him (defendant) in anyway either by sending upkeep allowance through relatives to his mother or introducing him to his family as his son.
That Julius “Edomwonyi” Obasohan (Father of the respondent) in his life time openly and vehemently rejected the defendant/appellant as his child and went round to tell members of his family that defendant was not his child. The respondent’s father even denounced his father’s – (respondent’s grand father – Pa. H.I Obasohan) acceptance of the defendant into his home by severing his relationship with his father.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court and restated that

”Paternity of a child can be determined by three major ways which are akin to the ways of proving legitimacy of a child.

(1) Paternity by existing Marriage: A child born during the pendency of a valid marriage between a couple is automatically presumed to be legitimate.

(2) Paternity by subsequent Marriage to the mother: this occurs when a child is born at a time when the mother was not married to the father and after whose birth the mother and father entered into a valid marriage.

(3) Paternity by acknowledgement by the father accepting paternity of the child: This includes paying for the hospital bills and upkeep of the child, introducing the child to his family as his child etc.”

Advertisement

And that since the parties in this case are in agreement that the late Julius Edomwonyi Obasohan did not marry the appellant’s mother, nor is there concrete evidence that the said late Julius Edomwonyi Obasohan acknowledged paternity of the appellant, the claim or allegation by the appellant that he is a legitimate child of the deceased father of the respondent was not proved.