What undue influence means
Undue influence is pressure that goes beyond persuasion.
It arises where one person is in a position of trust or dominance over another and uses it to procure a transaction the weaker party would not otherwise have entered. It does not require threats, which is what separates it from duress.
Where it is established, the transaction is voidable, meaning the influenced party can have it set aside.
How it is used
It comes up most often around wills, gifts of land and family property transfers, and guarantees given by relatives.
The classic Nigerian scenario is an elderly parent transferring land to one child who has been managing their affairs, to the exclusion of the others, shortly before death. The excluded siblings challenge it, and undue influence is the argument.
It also arises where a spouse or relative is asked to guarantee a business loan they gain nothing from, particularly where they had no independent advice.
Key features
- Requires a relationship where one party can influence the other
- Presumed in certain relationships, such as parent and child or doctor and patient
- Does not require threats, which distinguishes it from duress
- Makes the transaction voidable rather than void
- Independent legal advice is the usual way to rebut the presumption
How this works in Nigeria
Nigerian courts apply the doctrine to wills, gifts, and land transactions, and it appears regularly in family property litigation.
The practical protection is independent advice. Where a person in a position of dependence signs something significant, evidence that they saw their own lawyer, understood the transaction and were free to refuse is what defeats the argument later.
For documents involving an illiterate or blind party, the jurat, which records that the document was read and explained in a language they understood, does similar work.
Undue influence vs duress vs misrepresentation
Duress involves illegitimate pressure, classically a threat. It is the most overt of the three.
Undue influence involves the abuse of a relationship of trust or dominance. There need be no threat at all, which is what makes it harder to spot and easier to deny.
Misrepresentation involves a false statement inducing the contract. The person may have been perfectly free to refuse, but they were misled about the facts.
All three make a contract voidable, and all three require the wronged party to act rather than assume the transaction has already collapsed.
Limits and risks
The right to set the transaction aside can be lost by delay, by affirming it after the influence ended, or where third parties have acquired rights in good faith.
Proof is also demanding. Where the presumption does not apply, the person challenging must show actual influence, and family members disagreeing with a decision is not the same as that decision being procured improperly.
Worth knowing
Where somebody in a position of dependence is signing something significant, arrange independent legal advice and record it. That single step is what usually defeats a later challenge.