High Court Rules Lifetime Gift Takes Precedence Over Inheritance Claim in Wellingara Land Dispute

A High Court judge has ruled that a portion of a Wellingara property was validly gifted by its late owner to two women she raised as her own children, placing that portion beyond the reach of her biological son’s inheritance claim and dismissing his bid to evict them.

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court delivered judgment in a civil land dispute between Mr. Mamina Diedhiou—represented through his power of attorney, Ali Mendy—and the two defendants, Ndey Badjie and Haddy Badjie. Counsel S. K. Jobe appeared for the plaintiff while Counsel M. K. Bah represented the defendants.

The property at the centre of the case was formerly owned by the late Sally Badjie, who died on 18 February 2013. The plaintiff, presenting himself as her sole biological child and surviving heir, sought possession of the entire property, the eviction of the defendants, a perpetual injunction barring them from the land, and associated costs.

His claim rested principally on a Transfer of Ownership issued by the Bundung Cadi Court on 17 November 2017, which vested the property in him as son and heir following succession proceedings. He supported his case with a registered power of attorney, rates and taxes receipts paid to the Brikama Area Council, Sally Badjie’s death certificate, and a property valuation report. He characterized the defendants’ continued occupation as trespass and argued that, as neither biological nor lawful children of the deceased, they held no legal or equitable interest in the property.

The defendants did not dispute that the property had originally belonged to Sally Badjie. However, they maintained that well before her death, she had made a valid lifetime gift—known in law as an inter vivos gift—of a defined portion measuring 16 metres by 40 metres to them, and that this portion therefore never formed part of the estate available for inheritance.

Ndey Badjie and Haddy Badjie averred that they had been raised from childhood by Sally Badjie and her late husband, treated as members of the household, and had lived on the property for many years. They said the gift was made voluntarily, in recognition of that relationship and out of a desire to secure their welfare after her death. Crucially, they contended that the gift was not informal—it was documented during Sally Badjie’s lifetime before the Alkalo of Wellingara and witnessed by family and community members.

In support of their case, the defendants relied on an attestation dated 15 November 2012, a Certificate of Land Transfer executed during the deceased’s lifetime, a sketch plan identifying the gifted portion, Brikama Area Council rates and tax receipts issued in their names, and a subsequent Transfer of Ownership issued by the Bundung Cadi Court on 23 April 2018—after, they said, the plaintiff’s failure to disclose the prior gift was brought to the court’s attention.

Justice Jaiteh identified five issues for determination: the jurisdiction of the Bundung Cadi Court to revisit its earlier decision; whether the plaintiff had proved entitlement to the entire property; whether Sally Badjie had made a valid lifetime gift of the disputed portion; whether the defendants were trespassers liable to eviction; and what reliefs the parties were entitled to.

On the Cadi Court’s jurisdiction, Justice Jaiteh dismissed the plaintiff’s challenge as fundamentally misconceived. He held that any dispute over whether the Cadi Court had authority to revisit its November 2017 decision was not a matter for collateral attack in these proceedings — if the plaintiff believed that decision was made without jurisdiction, the proper course was a direct challenge through appeal or judicial review. He reaffirmed the established principle that a subsisting judgment of a competent court remains valid and binding until set aside by a court with the appropriate appellate or supervisory authority.

He further observed that the defendants’ case was not premised on the Cadi Court reversing an inheritance ruling, but rather on the legal reality that the gifted portion had already left Sally Badjie’s ownership during her lifetime — a fact the subsequent Cadi Court proceedings merely recognised.

On the validity of the gift, Justice Jaiteh set out the settled legal requirements: a valid inter vivos gift requires an intention on the part of the donor to make the gift, acceptance by the donee, and delivery or transfer of the subject matter. He cited the classical formulation from Milroy v Lord (1862) and the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Rose [1952], both of which hold that once a donor has done everything necessary to transfer property, the gift is complete. He also drew on the Nigerian Supreme Court’s decision in Adesubokan v Yinusa (1971), which affirmed that a person may dispose of their property by gift to any person of their choosing during their lifetime, whether or not that person is an heir.

“The validity of a gift does not depend on whether the donee is an heir,” Justice Jaiteh held. “What matters is intention and completion during the donor’s lifetime.”

Applying those principles to the evidence, the court found all three elements satisfied. The Attestation of 15 November 2012 — though not drafted in technical legal language — was found to clearly express Sally Badjie’s intention: she acknowledged that the defendants had been raised under her care, cited her advancing age and deteriorating health, and stated her wish that they continue to have a home after her death. The document bore her thumbprint and was witnessed by multiple persons, predating both her death and the commencement of any dispute. Justice Jaiteh assigned it considerable evidential weight.

On acceptance, the court noted that the defendants had occupied, maintained, and exercised acts of ownership over the property for many years. On delivery, the evidence showed that Sally Badjie had personally caused the transfer documents to be prepared before the Alkalo and placed the defendants in possession — a conclusion reinforced by their subsequent payment of rates and taxes in their own names.

Justice Jaiteh was also notably unimpressed by the plaintiff’s failure to produce any credible evidence that the defendants’ documents were forged, fabricated, or fraudulently obtained, or that Sally Badjie had lacked the mental capacity to make the gift.

A concession made by Ali Mendy under cross-examination proved particularly damaging to the plaintiff’s case. He admitted that when the plaintiff first approached the Bundung Cadi Court, the second defendant was already residing on the property, and that the deceased had raised the first defendant from childhood. Justice Jaiteh found those admissions highly significant, holding that they demonstrated the defendants’ occupation was long-standing and derived directly from their relationship with the deceased — fundamentally undermining the plaintiff’s characterisation of them as trespassers.

On trespass and eviction, having found the gift valid and complete, Justice Jaiteh held as a matter of law that the defendants were not trespassers. “A person lawfully in possession pursuant to a valid gift cannot be treated as a trespasser merely because another person subsequently claims inheritance rights over the property,” he stated. The claims for possession, eviction, and perpetual injunction in respect of the gifted portion were dismissed in their entirety.

Justice Jaiteh entered judgment substantially in favour of the defendants, making the following declarations and orders:

• Sally Badjie was the original owner of the landed property at Wellingara, Kombo North District.
• During her lifetime, she validly gifted the 16-by-40-metre portion to Ndey Badjie and Haddy Badjie; that gift was complete, valid, and legally effective before her death, and the gifted portion ceased to form part of her estate upon completion.
• The defendants are the lawful owners and possessors of the gifted portion and are not trespassers thereon.
• The plaintiff’s claims for possession of the entire property, eviction of the defendants, and a perpetual injunction are dismissed.
• The plaintiff, as the biological child and heir of Sally Badjie, is entitled only to the remainder of the estate not comprised in the valid lifetime gift.
• The parties are required, within 90 days of judgment, to cause the property to be professionally surveyed and demarcated in accordance with the existing transfer documents and sketch plans.
• Both parties are restrained from interfering with, encroaching upon, or alienating the other’s portion pending demarcation.
• In view of the family nature of the dispute and in the interest of promoting reconciliation, each party shall bear their own costs.