ABSTRACT
According to some authors, the meaning of trust as a legal concept is traceable to the moral connotation of the term which eventually informed its jurisprudential basis. Literally, trust means confidence reposed in others. It was this moral obligation that was eventually developed into a legal concept by the English chancery court and it became part of the Nigerian legal jurisprudence through statutory enactments, its administration regulated by established principles of equity and statutes. In medieval times, trust was widely employed as a means of transferring estates from one person to another for the benefit of a third party. The transferor is variously known as settlor, feoffor or testator, while the person (or persons) for whom the trust is created is called feofee or beneficiary. In the same vein, the person in whose care the settlor entrusts the estate is known as the trustee. It is instructive to note that the office of the trustee is very vital for the smooth administration of the trust. This is so because the estate is vested in the trustee who holds such property in accordance with the terms of the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary. A person may be expressly appointed trustee by an instrument or through some other means recognized by law. The equitable principle that “equity does not want for a trustee” is to the effect that considerable importance is attached to the office of a trustee in the trust administration. Even in situations where the instrument fails to appoint one, a trustee can be appointed by the court or through statutory powers.
This long essay seeks to examine the powers of a trustee vis-a-vis its operational regime under the Nigerian legal system. As a general rule a trustee must be capable of holding and disposing of property in his capacity. He must be competent to deal with the estate as required by the trust instrument for the beneficiary’s benefit. He must not be under any disability by nature or by law. He must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the court and be capable of the business. He must disclose any situation which might result in a conflict between his personal interest and his job as a trustee. A trustee must ascertain the validity of his appointment and understand the terms and nature of the trust.
In our clime, experience has shown that in the course of carrying out their assignments, trustees have come up against a lot of challenges and limitations despite statutory provisions relating to the exercise of their powers. Some of these challenges have to do with our customary and religious beliefs which result many a time in unending litigations.
Essentially, this essay will discourse trust holistically. In pursuance of this objective, this work will be divided into five chapters. Chapter one will deal with the general introduction to the topic which will include the historical evolution of trust and its reception into the Nigerian legal jurisprudence. Aims and objectives, importance of study, scope of study, research methodology, and literature review as well as meaning of trust and parties to a trust will be discoursed in this chapter. Chapter two will examine the relationship between trust and other legal concepts, classification, capacity, and the essentials of trust will be discoursed. Chapter three will focus on the seemingly simple but complex duties and powers of trustees. Chapter four will deal with remedies for breach of trust and liabilities. In closing, chapter five of this long essay will make recommendations, suggestions and propositions on how to improve the administration of trust in Nigeria.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF STATUTES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO STUDY
1.2.0: OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1.3.0: FOCUS OF STUDY
1.4.0: SCOPE OF STUDY
1.5.0: METHODOLOGY
1.6.0: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.7.0: MEANING OF TRUST
1.8.0: PARTIES TO A TRUST
1.9.0: APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEES
1.0.1: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2
THE CONCEPT OF TRUST UNDER THE NIGERIAN LEGAL SYSTEM
2.0.0: INTRODUCTION
2.1.0: TRUST AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS
2.2.0: TRUST AND CONTRACT
2.3.0: TRUST AND BAILMENT
2.4.0: TRUST AND THE OFFICE OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
2.5.0: TRUST AND AGENCY
2.6.0: CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTS
2.7.0: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC TRUST
2.8.0: EXPRESS AND IMPLIED TRUST
2.9.0: COMPLETELY AND INCOMPLETELY CONSTITUTED TRUST
2.0.1: RESULTING TRUSTS
2.0.2: CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTS
2.0.3: TRUST OF PERFECT AND IMPERFECT OBLIGATIONS
2.0.4: EXECUTED AND EXECUTORY TRUST
2.0.5: CREATION OF TRUST
2.0.6: CAPACITY TO CREATE A TRUST
2.0.7: INFANTS AND MINORS
2.0.8: PERONS SUFFERING FROM MENTALINCAPACITY
3.2.0.9: MARRIED WOMEN
2.0.0.1: CORPORATE BODIES
2.0.0.2: ESSENTIALS OF TRUSTS
2.0.0.3: CERTAINTY OF WORDS
2.0.0.4: CERTAINTY OF SUBJECT MATTER
2.0.0.5: CERTAINTY OF OBJECT
2.0.0.6: EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTY
2.0.0.7: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3
EXAMINATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE TRUSTEES
3.0.0: INTRODUCTION
3.1.0: ANALYSIS OF DUTY AS A CONCEPT
3.2.0: GENERAL DUTIES
(A) DUTY TO COLLECT AND SAFEGUARD THE ASSETS OF THE TRUST
(B) DUTY TO INVEST
(C) DUTY TO DISTRIBUTE
(D) DUTY TO MAINTAIN EQUALITY BETWEEN THE BENEFICIARIES i. The Duty to Convert ii. Apportionment
(E) DUTY TO PROVIDE ACCOUNTS AND INFORMATION i. Accounts ii. Information
3.3.0: FIDUCIARY DUTIES
(A) DUTY TO ACT GRATUITOUSLY: Remuneration and Reinbursement
i. Authority in Trust Instrument ii. Authorization by Statute iii. Authorization by the Court iv. Agreement with the Beneficiaries
v. The Rule in Craddock v. Piper
vi.Authority by Law of Foreign Country where Trust Property is Located
(B) DUTY NOT TO PURCHASE TRUST PROPERTY
i. Purchase of Trust Property ii. Purchase of Beneficiaries Interest
(C) DUTY NOT TO MAKE INCIDENTAL PROFITS FROM THE TRUST
3.4.0: ANALYSIS OF POWER AS A CONCEPT
(A) POWER TO DELEGATE
(B) POWER OF SALE
(C) POWER TO INSURE
(D)THE POWER OF MAINTENANCE AND ADVANCEMENT
3.5.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4
BREACH TRUST AND ITS REMEDIES
4.0.0: INTRODUCTION
4.1.0: LIAB ILITY FOR BREACH OF TRUST
(A) LIABILITY IS PERSONAL
(B) MEASURE OF LIABILITY
(C) LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF CO-TRUSTEES
i. Contribution ii. Indemnity
4.2.0: REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF TRUST
A. PERSONAL REMEDIES
i. Damages to Compensate Loss ii. Compelling the Performance of the Trust iii. Prevention of Breach
B. TRACING
i. Tracing at Common Law ii. Tracing at Equity
PROPERTY THAT CAN BE TRACED
a. Legal or Equitable Proprietary Interest
b. Identity of the Trust Fund or Property: Mixture with other funds
(i) In the hands of trustees
(ii) In the hands of another beneficiary
(iii) In the hands of third parties
4.3.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0.0: CONCLUSION
5.0.1: RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF CASES
NIGERIA
• ADEMOLA v. SHODIPO (1989) N.W.L.R. at 121 329.
• AMADU TIJANI v. SECRETARY SOUTHERN NIGERIA (1921)3 N.L.R
21.
• FREGENE v. AWOSHIKA (1974)3 W.L.R. 64 at 68.
• OKESUJI v. LAWAL (1988) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt 22) 417 at 438.
UNITED KINGDOM
• ABERDEEN RAILWAY CO. v. BLAIKIE BROTHERS (1854)1 Macq. 461 at
471-473
• ALLUMINIUM INDUSTRIES VAASEN B.V. v. ROMALPA ALLUMINIUM
LTD. (1976)1 WLR 676.
• BOYCE v. BOYCE (1970)2 Q.B 52.
• CRADDOCK v. PIPER (1850)1 Mac. & G. 664, and see (1983)46 M.L.R. 298 at p. 306(bishop and prentiss).
• FOSTER v. HALE (1798) Q.B. 21.
•