Introduction
Can you sue a dead person? The simple answer is no —a deceased individual ceases to have legal personality, meaning they cannot initiate or defend a lawsuit. Yet, cases arise where plaintiffs unknowingly—or negligently—file lawsuits against deceased defendants.
The case of Mr. Rufus Adekunle Wright (Trustees of the Estate of Mrs. Ayodele Smith) v. Alhaji Bakare, heard in the High Court of Lagos State, is a textbook example of procedural incompetence undermining substantive justice. While the lawsuit itself was invalid because the defendant had been dead for ten years before it was filed, the court dismissed the challenge to the judgment on procedural grounds.
This ruling underscores a key tension in legal practice: even when a case is flawed on its merits, procedural errors can still prevent a remedy. This article breaks down what happened, why it mattered, and the lessons it offers for legal practitioners and lay readers alike.
Background of the Case
The case centered on a land dispute in Lagos, Nigeria, between Mr. Rufus Adekunle Wright, representing the estate of the late Mrs. Ayodele Smith, and Alhaji Bakare, the named defendant. The claimant had obtained a declaration of ownership and an order evicting the defendant from the property. The applicant then brought an application to set aside the judgment.
In the application the applicant made a crucial revelation: the person sued—Alhaji Morufu Adeyinka Bakare—had died on June 10, 2008. The lawsuit, however, was only filed in April 2018, a full ten years after his death. This raised serious legal questions about the validity of the judgment and the court's jurisdiction.
Defendant's Arguments (Applicant's Claims)
Since the defendant had passed away before the lawsuit was filed, his legal representatives challenged the case by arguing that a dead person cannot be sued since legal personality ceases upon death. As a result, any judgment issued against a non-existent individual is legally void. They relied on precedents such as NZOM v. JINADU and APC v. INEC, which establish that a deceased person lacks standing in legal proceedings. Furthermore, they contended that the High Court of Lagos State lacked jurisdiction to decide a case against a non-juristic person, making the November 2018 judgment invalid from the outset. Lastly, the applicant asserted that the judgment was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, as the claimant failed to disclose that the defendant was already deceased, effectively misleading the court into issuing a ruling against someone who no longer existed.
Claimant's Response (Opposing Arguments)
The claimant, Mr. Rufus Adekunle Wright, countered these arguments by emphasizing the procedural failures of the applicant. He first argued that the applicant, Alhaji Ashimiu Bakare, was not a party to the original case, but rather a third party attempting to intervene after judgment had already been delivered. Since the law grants only parties to a case the right (locus standi) to challenge a judgment, the applicant lacked the necessary legal standing. Additionally, the claimant pointed out the correct procedure the applicant should have adopted, that the applicant should have sought leave to appeal as an interested party rather than filing a motion to set aside the judgment. This failure to follow the correct procedure rendered the challenge procedurally incompetent. Finally, the claimant invoked the principle of functus officio, which means that once a court has issued a final judgment, it loses the authority to revisit or modify its decision—except in cases of fraud or lack of jurisdiction. In this case, since the judgment had already been finalized, the court had no power to reopen the matter.
Court's Ruling: A Clash Between Substance and Procedure
After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the court made two critical rulings:
1. A lawsuit against a dead person is a legal impossibility.
The court confirmed that suing a dead person is a legal impossibility. If the said Bakare had died before the case was filed**, the** lawsuit had no legal standing from the outset**. Since a dead person has no legal personality, any judgment issued against them is automatically void. The court cited NZOM v. JINADU and APC v. INEC as precedents affirming this principle.
2. However, the Applicant Had No Right to Challenge the Judgment
Despite acknowledging the likelihood of the lawsuit's invalidity, the court dismissed the application to set aside the judgment on procedural grounds. Since the applicant was not a party to the original case, he had no legal standing (locus standi) to challenge the ruling. Instead, the proper legal approach would have been to seek leave to appeal as an interested party, rather than filing a motion to set aside the judgment.
Ultimately, while the challenge was flawed, leading to its dismissal.
Conclusion
The case of Wright v. Bakare serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of legal procedure. While the court acknowledged that the original lawsuit may be invalid, it still dismissed the challenge due to procedural errors made by the applicant.
For lawyers and litigants, the takeaway is clear: substance alone does not win cases—procedural compliance is equally critical. A single technical misstep—like applying to set aside a matter a person was not a party to, can unravel even the most compelling claim. In law, procedure matters.