LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EQUITY AND TRUSTS — Presumption of Advancement — Rebuttal — Father’s Subsequent Conduct Inadmissible to Rebut Advancement
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Subsequent declarations and acts by the father are inadmissible in evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement. Similar dealings or the course of business practice that the father collected rents on the property are irrelevant.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Ughutevbe v. Shonowo (2004) NLC-1601997(SC) at p. 31; Paras D–E, quoting Ayoola, JCA with approval.
"Subsequent declarations and acts of which evidence abounds from the defence are inadmissible in evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement. Again, similar dealings or the course of business practice that the plaintiff's father collected rents on the property are irrelevant."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A father’s subsequent conduct (after the transaction) cannot rebut presumption of advancement. Rent collection or other later dealings are irrelevant to rebuttal. The principle applies to equity and trusts. The rule prevents using self-serving later acts to undo an advancement. Only contemporaneous or pre-transaction evidence can rebut. The father cannot rely on his own subsequent conduct to claim the property was not a gift.
