Q: My only brother (I have three sisters well) died one year before my father, who, in turn, passed away three years ago. My brother left behind two wives, five sons and eight daughters. Shortly before his death, my father transferred all his '.property which comprised agricultural if land, houses and domestic animals to the name of my eldest nephew. I was away from home, working in Saudi Arabia, When I learned this. Perhaps he was pressured into this. Later on, I managed to get small portion of the agricultural land transferred in the names of my two sons, f But this share is much less than what I |would have inherited from my father had he not made this transfer. May I ask whether my action represents a disobedience to my late father?
A: I do not know whether I would be able to answer this question on the basis of the in-Information provided. You say you have recovered a small portion of the land which is now registered in your sons' names. If we are talking about inheritance here, your sons do not inherit their grandfather in your presence. How did you make this recovery? What about your sisters' shares? What about your own share? What about your mother's?
If we are taking this case on the basis of a gift made by your father to his grandson, I have often spoken about gifts from parents to children pointing out that a parent must be fair to all his children. By transferring his property to one of his grandsons, your father was unfair to you, your sisters and to his other grandchildren. His heirs could object to his deed and a court of law may find that he acted illegally and revoke his action. All this depends on the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The alternative would be for your father's heir to sit down together and look at the matter in an amicable way which seeks to do justice to everyone. Sometimes this is exceedingly difficult, because the beneficiaries of a particular situation would not wish to lose their benefits. In this case, your nephew could easily say that he received a gift which he would not relinquish.
If we are talking about the inheritance, your father's action could be interpreted as deprivig you and your sisters and your mother of your rights of inheritance from him. If that was his intention, then he was clearly guilty of something very grave indeed. It may be that you cannot put right what he has done.
You have to consider whether to file a law suit to redistribute his wealth among his rightful heirs. You should consult a lawyer about the possibility of making a successful legal application.
What worries me about your question is the way you argued the case. You do not speak at all about the rightful shares of your sisters whom you say they are already married. Let me make it clear that a married daughter is still entitled to her full share of inheritance from her parents.
The fact that she has got married does not mean that she has no claim to her share. For your information, at the time when your father died, the property he has, including the land, the animals, the houses, etc. should have been divided in the following manner: One eighth to your mother and one eighth to each of your sisters. You take one quarter or two eighth.
The other quarter goes to the children of your deceased brother on the basis of the principle of the compulsory will. His five sons and eight daughters share it together on the basis of one share each to every daughter and two shares to each son.
I reiterate that I am not able to give you a direct answer to your question. However, if a man takes arbitrary measures before his death to give his estate or much of it to one or more of his heirs to the exclusion of others, it is perfectly legitimate for those deprived others to get back their shares through a court action.


