PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

Had donor been able to establish fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, or perhaps total failure of the object of the gift, then upon such evidence, the gift may be revoked; as there is no such evidence, there is no merit in the appeal.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Anyaegbunam v. Osaka & Ors (2000) NLC-541994(SC) at p. 20; Paras. D–E.
"Had he been able to establish fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, or perhaps total failure of the object of the gift, then upon such evidence, the gift may be revoked. Vide Chief Johnson Imah & Anor v. Chief A. Okogbe & Ors (1993) 12 SCNJ 57; (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt. 316) 159. As there is no such evidence in the instant case, I do not find any merit in this appeal."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

This qualifies Principle 457’s irrevocability rule. Completed gifts are generally irrevocable but can be set aside for: (1) fraud—donee obtained gift through deception; (2) mistake—donor’s fundamental error about material facts; (3) misrepresentation—false statements inducing the gift; (4) total failure of gift object—purpose for which gift was made completely failed. These grounds require: actual proof (not mere allegation), substantial evidence, and material defects affecting gift validity. “Total failure of object” means: complete frustration of gift purpose, not partial failure or donor’s regret. Without proving these grounds: gifts remain irrevocable despite donor’s: change of mind, subsequent disagreement with donee, or feeling the gift was improvident. The burden is on donor seeking revocation to: establish one of these grounds, prove it with credible evidence, and demonstrate materiality. Courts won’t revoke gifts for: donor’s regret, changed circumstances, or general dissatisfaction. This strict approach serves: gift finality, protecting donees’ reliance, and preventing donors from undoing completed gifts without substantial justification. Only serious defects (fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, total purpose failure) justify disturbing completed gifts.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE