Introduction

A trust of imperfect obligation refers to a unique type of trust where property is set aside for a specific purpose, but without an identifiable beneficiary who can enforce the trust. These trusts often arise in testamentary contexts where a testator makes provision for purposes such as the maintenance of graves or the erection of monuments. Though morally compelling, such obligations are not always legally enforceable due to the absence of a cestui que trust—that is, a person in whose favor the court can compel performance.

The Nigerian High Court decision in Adekunle Adeseye & Ors v. Nathaniel A. Williams & Ors (1964) All N.L.R. 459 provides a rare judicial discussion of this doctrine, particularly in the context of testamentary trusts established for erecting a gravestone. The case demonstrates how courts in Nigeria approach such obligations when interpreting wills and considering the duties of executors and trustees.

Historical Development

Origins in Roman Law

The roots of this doctrine lie in Roman law, particularly under the concept of fideicommissum, which imposed moral obligations on fiduciaries, though not all were legally enforceable. Roman jurisprudence accepted the notion of personal duty devoid of judicial enforceability, particularly for acts considered honorable but not enforceable in court.

Development in English Common Law

English common law developed the modern understanding of trusts of imperfect obligation. Notably, in Re Astor's Settlement Trusts [1952] Ch 534, the court refused to uphold non-charitable purpose trusts lacking identifiable beneficiaries. Earlier in Musset v Bingle (1876), a bequest for the erection of a monument was partially upheld, while a provision for its indefinite maintenance was invalidated. Such cases illustrate the judicial hesitation to recognize obligations that cannot be policed or enforced by a named individual.

Application in Nigerian Law

Nigerian trust and succession law, derived from English common law, reflects these principles. Although there is no Nigerian statute specifically codifying this doctrine, courts have followed common law logic in adjudicating trust and probate disputes. The decision in Adeseye v. Williams affirms this approach and expands Nigerian jurisprudence by applying the doctrine directly in a testamentary context.

How the Doctrine Works in Practice

A trust of imperfect obligation arises where a testator or settlor creates a trust for a particular non-charitable purpose, but without a named human beneficiary. In Nigerian law, such a trust will only be recognized where the purpose is clear, not illegal, and not perpetual. The trust must also not offend the rule against perpetuities. While courts may recognize the existence of such a trust, enforcement becomes problematic because no one has a legal standing to sue for its performance.

The doctrine is commonly applied in situations where the testator desires to achieve personal or sentimental goals, such as maintaining burial sites or erecting memorials. However, because there is no cestui que trust to enforce the obligation, such trusts are generally honorary. Trustees are expected—but not legally compelled—to carry them out unless the will provides otherwise or a surplus remains after the purpose has been fulfilled.

Case Study – Adekunle Adeseye & Ors v. Nathaniel A. Williams & Ors (1964)

Case Background

A.A. Adeseye died in 1935 and left a will directing that his property at No. 27 Okepopo Street, Lagos, be rented for fifteen years. The income was to be used to cover burial expenses, pay legal and municipal obligations, and erect a gravestone on his grave. After these obligations were satisfied, the property was to be transferred to his children and a grandchild in equal shares.

The plaintiffs, who were beneficiaries under the will, brought an action against the executors, alleging mismanagement and a failure to account for the rental income. They sought the removal of the trustees and an order compelling them to render full accounts of the estate.

Key Legal Issue

The central legal question was whether the executors were obliged to render an account of trust funds to beneficiaries who, under the will, were not yet entitled to receive those funds. The court also had to determine the enforceability of the obligation to erect a gravestone under the doctrine of trust of imperfect obligation.

Court's Ruling

The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an account because the rental income was designated for specific purposes, none of which included a direct disbursement to the plaintiffs at that stage. The obligation to erect a gravestone was found to be a trust of imperfect obligation—lawful but not enforceable by the beneficiaries.

On the question of trustee removal, the court found that although the trustees had previously disagreed, they were now cooperating and there was no evidence of ongoing conflict or mismanagement. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

Legal Implications of the Doctrine in Litigation

The Adeseye case reinforces several important procedural and substantive points. First, it affirms that trustees are not bound to render accounts to beneficiaries unless those beneficiaries have a current and legally enforceable interest in the trust property. Second, it highlights the limited enforceability of honorary or imperfect trusts under Nigerian law, especially in testamentary settings.

This decision also clarifies that courts are reluctant to remove trustees unless there is clear evidence of misconduct, conflict, or mismanagement. Disagreements among trustees alone are insufficient grounds for removal unless they disrupt the proper administration of the trust. Furthermore, the absence of a residuary clause in the will complicates post-performance distribution and underscores the importance of thorough estate planning.

Legal practitioners must be vigilant in identifying testamentary provisions that impose obligations without corresponding enforcement mechanisms. Where such obligations exist, the beneficiaries may be unable to compel performance unless the trustee deviates from the testator's instructions or a residual interest arises.

Conclusion

The doctrine of trust of imperfect obligation illustrates a unique area of trust law where moral duty and legal enforceability diverge. The Lagos High Court, in Adekunle Adeseye v. Nathaniel A. Williams, affirmed that although a testator's wishes may carry moral weight, they do not always confer legal rights upon beneficiaries. The case serves as an important reminder that trustees can only be held accountable where enforceable rights exist and that honorary obligations, such as those to erect a memorial, are not generally justiciable unless the trust fails or a surplus remains.