Authored By: Borokinni Fathia Oluwatimilehin
Lagos State University
Case Citation and Basic Information
Case Name: Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje, (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC), Supreme Court of Nigeria (5 Judge Constitutional Bench), decided Friday, 11 April 2014
Bench Composition:
- Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, JSC
- Olabode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (Lead Judgment)
- Clara Bata Ogunbiyi, JSC
- Kumai Bayang Aka’ahs, JSC
- John Inyang Okoro, JSC
Introduction
Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria concerning constitutional law, customary law, and the protection of fundamental rights.[1] The case addressed the constitutionality of the Igbo customary law rule that prevented female children from inheriting their deceased father’s estate. The Supreme Court examined whether such a customary practice was compatible with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly the guarantee against discrimination.[2] The judgment is widely regarded as a significant milestone in Nigerian jurisprudence because it reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over discriminatory customary practices and strengthened the protection of gender equality. Its principles continue to influence inheritance disputes and the enforcement of fundamental rights across Nigeria.
III. Facts of the Case
The dispute arose from the administration of the estate of Mr. Lazarus Ogbonnaya Ukeje, who died intestate, leaving behind properties to be distributed among his lawful beneficiaries. During his lifetime, the deceased fathered Miss Gladys Ada Ukeje, the respondent, who claimed to be his biological daughter. Following his death, Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje, the first appellant and widow of the deceased, together with the second appellant, obtained Letters of Administration to administer the estate.
The respondent instituted an action before the High Court of Lagos State, seeking a declaration that she was a daughter of the deceased and was therefore entitled to share in his estate. She contended that despite being the biological child of the deceased, she had been excluded from the administration and distribution of the estate. Evidence was led before the trial court to establish her paternity, and the court accepted that she was indeed the deceased’s daughter.[3]
The appellants maintained that, under the applicable Igbo customary law governing inheritance, the respondent was not entitled to inherit from the estate of the deceased. The respondent, however, argued that such a customary rule was inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), particularly Section 42(1) and (2), which guarantees freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex or the circumstances of a person’s birth.[4] She also relied on the constitutional supremacy clause in Section 1(3), which renders void any law or custom inconsistent with the Constitution.[5]
The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to inherit from her father’s estate and declared the discriminatory customary rule unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, where the principal issue was whether the relevant rule of Igbo customary law excluding a female child from inheriting her father’s estate could stand in the face of the constitutional prohibition against discrimination.[6]
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the following legal issues:[7]
Whether Miss Gladys Ada Ukeje, having been established as the biological daughter of the deceased, was entitled to inherit from the estate of her late father.
Whether the Igbo customary law which excludes a female child from inheriting her deceased father’s estate is inconsistent with Sections 1(3) and 42(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and is therefore null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.
Whether the High Court and the Court of Appeal were correct in declaring the respondent entitled to participate in the administration and distribution of the estate of the deceased.
Arguments Presented
5.1 Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondent was not entitled to participate in the administration and distribution of the estate of the deceased. They contended that the lower courts erred in holding that the respondent could inherit from her late father’s estate under the applicable Igbo customary law. They maintained that the estate should be distributed in accordance with the relevant customary rules governing succession and urged the Supreme Court to set aside the concurrent decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.[8]
The appellants further argued that the lower courts wrongly interpreted the applicable customary law and the constitutional provisions relating to inheritance. They therefore prayed the Supreme Court to allow the appeal and restore the position they considered consistent with the applicable customary law.
5.2 Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that she had established, through credible evidence accepted by the trial court, that she was the biological daughter of the deceased and was therefore entitled to inherit from his estate. She contended that any rule of customary law which deprived her of that right solely because she was a female child was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
In support of her argument, the respondent relied on Sections 1(3) and 42(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). She submitted that the Constitution is the supreme law of Nigeria and that any customary law inconsistent with its provisions is void to the extent of the inconsistency.[9] She therefore urged the Supreme Court to affirm the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which recognised her right to inherit from her late father’s estate and declared the discriminatory customary rule unconstitutional.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by affirming the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the respondent had successfully proved she was the biological daughter of the deceased. The Court reiterated the settled principle that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts unless such findings were shown to be perverse, unsupported by the evidence, or had occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Since the appellants failed to establish any of these exceptional circumstances, the Court accepted the respondent’s paternity as conclusively established.[10]
The Court then turned to the central legal issue: whether the Igbo customary law excluding a female child from inheriting her deceased father’s estate could stand in light of the Constitution. In interpreting the law, the Court relied on Section 1(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which provides that the Constitution is the supreme law and that any law inconsistent with its provisions is void to the extent of its inconsistency.[11] The Court also relied on Section 42(1) and (2) of the Constitution, which guarantees every Nigerian freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex or the circumstances of birth.[12]
The Supreme Court accepted the respondent’s argument that denying a female child the right to inherit solely because of her gender amounted to unconstitutional discrimination. Conversely, it rejected the appellants’ contention that the disputed customary rule should govern the distribution of the estate. The Court reasoned that although customary law is recognised as a source of law in Nigeria, it cannot prevail where it conflicts with the Constitution. Accordingly, any customary rule that discriminates against a female child in matters of inheritance is invalid and unenforceable.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional principle that fundamental rights enjoy supremacy over conflicting customary practices. The Court’s reasoning was consistent with earlier judicial decisions condemning discriminatory customary rules and reaffirming that customs repugnant to natural justice, equity, and good conscience cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the constitutional guarantee of equality and freedom from discrimination prevails over any conflicting rule of customary law. Consequently, any customary law that deprives a female child of the right to inherit her father’s estate solely on the basis of her sex is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
VII. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi
7.1 Judgment
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the respondent, Miss Gladys Ada Ukeje, having been established as the biological daughter of the deceased, was entitled to participate in the administration and distribution of her late father’s estate. It further declared that the applicable rule of Igbo customary law which disentitled a female child from inheriting her father’s estate was inconsistent with Sections 1(3) and 42(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and was therefore null and void to the extent of its inconsistency. Accordingly, the reliefs granted by the lower courts in favour of the respondent were upheld.[13]
7.2 Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the case is that any customary law which denies a female child the right to inherit her deceased father’s estate solely on the ground of her sex is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to freedom from discrimination guaranteed under Section 42 of the Constitution. By virtue of Section 1(3) of the Constitution, such a discriminatory customary rule is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.[14]
VIII. Critical Analysis
8.1 Significance of the Decision
The decision in Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje represents a landmark development in Nigerian constitutional and customary law. By declaring the discriminatory rule of Igbo customary law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over all other sources of law. The judgment strengthened the constitutional guarantee of equality by making it clear that female children cannot be denied inheritance solely because of their gender. It also clarified the relationship between customary law and the Constitution, confirming that customary practices must conform to constitutional standards to remain legally enforceable.
8.2 Implications and Impact
The judgment has had significant legal and social implications. It has influenced inheritance disputes across Nigeria by promoting equal inheritance rights for female children and discouraging discriminatory customary practices. The decision has also provided guidance to lower courts in resolving similar disputes involving customary law and constitutional rights. Beyond its legal impact, the case has encouraged greater public awareness of gender equality and reinforced the principle that constitutional rights must be protected regardless of cultural or traditional practices. Consequently, the decision has contributed to the progressive development of Nigerian jurisprudence on human rights and non-discrimination.
8.3 Critical Evaluation
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is commendable for giving full effect to the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment reflects a balanced approach by recognising the importance of customary law while emphasising that such law cannot override the Constitution. This promotes legal certainty and protects vulnerable members of society from discriminatory practices. However, the decision did not provide detailed guidance on how similar discriminatory customs affecting other aspects of family and succession law should be addressed. Despite this limitation, the judgment remains persuasive because it establishes a clear constitutional standard against discrimination and provides a solid foundation for future judicial decisions involving conflicts between customary law and fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The decision in Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje remains one of the most significant constitutional and inheritance law decisions in Nigeria. Through this judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over any customary law that discriminates against individuals on the basis of sex. By recognising the respondent’s right to inherit from her father’s estate, the Court strengthened the constitutional principles of equality, non-discrimination, and justice, while reinforcing the protection of fundamental rights in matters of succession.
The case serves as an important precedent for resolving future disputes involving conflicts between customary law and constitutional provisions. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s vital role in ensuring that long-standing customs evolve in line with constitutional values and the demands of a modern democratic society. Ultimately, the judgment continues to shape Nigerian jurisprudence by promoting equal treatment under the law and ensuring that customary practices conform to the principles of fairness, justice, and the rule of law.
Reference(S):
Cases
Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
Mojekwu v. Mojekwu (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 283.
Mojekwu v. Iwuchukwu (2004) 11 NWLR (Pt. 883) 196.
Legislation
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 1(3), 42(1) and 42(2).
Books
Niki Tobi, Cases and Materials on Nigerian Constitutional Law (Malthouse Press Ltd 2004).
B O Nwabueze, Constitutional Law of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Revised edn, Spectrum Books Ltd 2004).
E I Nwogugu, Family Law in Nigeria (3rd edn, HEBN Publishers Plc 2014).
Journal Articles
Akinola Aguda, ‘The Challenge of Customary Law in a Constitutional Democracy’ (1998) 42 Journal of African Law 131.
A A Oba, ‘Religious and Customary Laws in Nigeria’ (2002) 25 Journal of Legal Pluralism 1.
Online Sources
LawCare Nigeria, ‘Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014)’ “https://lawcarenigeria.com/mrs-lois-chituru-ukeje-anor-v-mrs-gladys-ada-ukeje2014/” (https://lawcarenigeria.com/mrs-lois-chituru-ukeje-anor-v-mrs-gladys-ada-ukeje2014/) accessed 30 July 2026.
JurisAid Nigeria, ‘Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje’ “https://jurisaid.ng/cases/mrs-lois-chituru-ukeje-anor-v-miss-gladys-ada-ukeje” (https://jurisaid.ng/cases/mrs-lois-chituru-ukeje-anor-v-miss-gladys-ada-ukeje) accessed 30 July 2026.
LegalPedia Nigeria, ‘Mrs. Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v. Mrs. Gladys Ada Ukeje’ “https://legalpediaonline.com/” (https://legalpediaonline.com/) accessed 30 July 2026.
[1] Mrs Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v Mrs Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
[2] 2. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 1(3), 42(1)–(2).
[3] Mrs Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v Mrs Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
[4] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 42(1)–(2).
[5] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 1(3).
[6] Mrs Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v Mrs Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
[7] Ukeje v Ukeje (n 1).
[8] Ukeje v Ukeje (n 1)
[9] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 1(3), 42(1)–(2)
[10] Mrs Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v Mrs Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
[11] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 1(3).
[12] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 42(1) and (2).
[13] Mrs Lois Chituru Ukeje & Anor v Mrs Gladys Ada Ukeje (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt 1418) 384; LPELR-22724(SC).
[14] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), ss 1(3), 42(1) and 42(2).
