LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EQUITY AND TRUSTS — Undue Influence — Classification — Actual Undue Influence Where Influence Expressly Used by Donee
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Two classes of undue influence exist: (1) where influence was expressly used by the donee; (2) where relations raise a presumption of influence. In the first class, influence must be proved; in the second, the burden shifts to the donee to prove the gift was spontaneous and independent.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Bua v. Dauda (2003) NLC-1371999(SC) at p. 9; Paras B–D.
"First, where the court has been satisfied that the gift was the result of influence expressly used by the donee for the purpose; second, where the relations between the donor and donee have at or shortly before the execution of the gift been such as to raise a presumption that the donee had influence over the donor. In such a case the court sets aside the voluntary gift, unless it is proved that in fact the gift was the spontaneous act of the donor acting under circumstances which enabled him to exercise an independent will and which justifies the court in holding that the gift was the result of a free exercise of the donor's will. The first class of cases may be considered as depending on the principle that no one shall be allowed to retain any benefit arising from his own fraud or wrongful act."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Undue influence has two classes: actual and presumed. The principle applies to gifts and contracts. In actual undue influence, the claimant must prove influence. In presumed undue influence, the burden shifts. The rule protects vulnerable parties. The court will set aside transactions where influence is proved or presumed unrebutted. The principle is equitable.