THE THRESHOLD OF UNDUE INFLUENCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BETWEEN SPIRITUAL FATHERS AND THEIR FOLLOWERS

Sometime ago, there was a young man  who  was suffering from chronic epilepsy somewhere in Nigeria. He was from a very wealthy background. Having  lost both of his parents, the young man inherited all their assets at home and abroad. As affluent as he was, this ailment denied him all the joy of life. As a devout christian, he always looked forward to  divine healing  and reposed confidence in his spiritual leader in whose house he later started to live. Sadly, however, he eventually died battling with the disease.

Shortly before his death, the deceased had transferred half of his assets to his spiritual leader and confidant as gifts. Funny enough, the deceased did not name his confidant as one of the executors in his will. Few months after his demise, the deceased's uncles whom he had named as the executors of his estate in his will threatened  to recover the gifts given to their deceased's nephew's pastor in court.

Is there any legal justification for the recovery of the gifts the deceased willingly gave to his spiritual father in the scenario?

THE LEGAL POSITION
Although the deceased (the donor) in the  scenario willingly gave the gifts to his spiritual father( the donee), the Nigerian law of contract does not allow gifts being given in a relationship where one of the parties appears to have some influence over the other such that the presentation of gifts to that party by the other must have arisen from such influence.

In the above scenario, it is clear that the spiritual leader ( the donee)  had indirectly dominated the donor (the deceased) to give room for presumption that he had taken benefit of undue influence over the donor. The court could declare the gifts invalid for this reason alone.

Thank you for your attention.

See you tomorrow.

DISCLAIMER: THE ENTIRE PUBLIC SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE STORY IS FICTION AND IT IS ONLY FOR EDUCATIVE PURPOSES AND IF IT, EITHER WHOLLY OR  PARTLY, BEARS ANY SIMILARITY TO THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF ANY INDIVIDUAL AT ANY PLACE OR POINT IN TIME, IT IS HEREBY AFFIRMED THAT IT IS A MERE COINCIDENCE.