It is a native law and custom of the Yoruba that has been judicially noticed that it is only the children (male and female) of the deceased who are entitled to inherit the estate of a deceased person. Yusuf v. Dada & Ors (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 657; Adisa v. Ladokun (1973) 9 & 10 S.C. 55.
Yes, they do. The custom is actually that it is the eldest child, whether male or female, that becomes the Head of the family after their father’s demise. See Abibbatu Folami V. Flora Cole ( 1986) 2 C.A. (Pt. ii) 353.In case of intestacy, the man’s property devolves on all his surviving children in equal measure, male and female. In the old case of Lewis V. Bankole (1909) 1 NLR 82 @ 104. See also Amusat V. Olawunmi (2002) FWLR (Pt. 118) 1385 @ 1402.
Upon the death of a Yoruba person, title to his properties devolves on all his surviving children in equal proportion or share and the eldest child assumes the position of the of the head of the family and manages the properties or estate of the deceased in trust for and on behalf of all the children. Yusuf v. Dada & Ors (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 657; Kareem v. Ogunde (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 73
For there to be a valid sale of land under the the Yoruba native law and custom, the following criteria must exist. They are: (1) Payment of the purchase price (2) Purchaser is let into possession by the vendor; (3) (1) and (2) above must be in the presence of witness(es) See Ogundalu v. Macjob (2015) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1460) 96; Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997) 7 SCNJ p.135; Onyekwuluje V. Animashaun (2019) HELAR ratio 1
There is no automatism in the customary law of the Yoruba as to succession by the eldest child either to the position of the headship of the family, or family title. In the sociological dealings of the Yoruba people, they are pragmatic and are not given to theorizing in any shape or form. In deciding that the most senior male member even if junior to the other female children is the head of a family, other factors must be taken into consideration like where the most senior male or the only male child is an infant, imbecile, or incapacitated by reason of bad health, legal confinement, or he is of a notorious character, does such a person automatically step into the shoes of the headship? It would become absurd and ridiculous if that statement of native law and custom is accepted without any qualification. Yusuff v. Dada & Ors (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 146) 657.