Court Dismisses Application To Appoint Interim Administrators For Late Access Bank CEO’s Estate

The court directed the counsel in the suit to ensure that the case was not unnecessarily prolonged in the interest of the minor children of the estate.

The claimants, Chukwuka and Shyngle, had instituted the suit marked No. ID/7735FPM/2024 against Uche Wigwe, Aigboje AIG Imoukhiede, and Miss Otutochi Channel Wigwe.

The claimants, aside from seeking an order of the court to appoint an interim administrator, are also praying the court to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against Access Bank Plc, Coronation Merchant Bank Limited, and United Securities Limited to disclose information on the dividend shares and other financial transactions of the deceased person.

Meanwhile, in the suit, the Wigwe family is adding Herbert’s daughter as a respondent.

However, while ruling on the application to appoint interim administrators for the late Wigwe estate, the judge dismissed the application, holding that she found no wrongdoing by the respondents.

She said, “I cannot find evidence of any wrongdoing by the second defendant/respondent either disclosed by the claimants/applicants in their affidavit evidence or any complaint from the beneficiaries of the estate as represented by the third defendant/respondent.”

Justice Adeyemi also held that the substantive case is ripe for hearing at the Case Management Conference (CMC) and that most of the prayers sought by the claimants are the same as in the substantive matter.

READ ALSO: Organisers of Lagos City marathon pay tribute to Wigwe one year after

Regarding the relief for the appointment of an interim guardian and supervision, the judge stated: “The Court finds that not only is this relief part of the claim in the substantive suit but there is also an existing judgment by a competent court making the 3rd defendant/respondent the legal guardian of the minor children of the deceased.

“Since there is no pending appeal before this court in respect of this judgment, this court cannot review the said judgment at this interlocutory stage. See Akinpelu v. Adegbore & Ors (2008) LPELR-354(SC)… The courts have been cautioned time and again not to delve into substantive issues at the interlocutory stage.”

After citing a plethora of decided cases from higher courts, she further held that if live issues are tried at the interlocutory stage, there will be nothing left for trial at the substantive hearing of the suit. Any pronouncement made may prejudice the trial in respect of which evidence is yet to be led.

She added, “In the circumstances, the court finds and holds that orders for the appointment of interim administrators and guardians are also part of the reliefs sought in the substantive claim, and therefore, the court cannot make any pronouncement on these issues at the interlocutory stage.”

Also, in the ruling, the court agreed with the claimants/applicants’ counsel that the court has jurisdiction to rely on the principle of law from other jurisdictions as persuasive authority.

However, the judge held that since the court has declined to appoint interim administrators at this stage, the order is of no use. The court found and held that the claimants/applicants are not entitled to the reliefs sought before the court.

The judge said, “The court records show that pleadings have been closed in this suit and the same is ripe for Case Management Conference. The contention of learned senior counsel for the claimants/applicants that, given the issues involved in this suit, there might be a protracted trial is not only unfounded but also preemptive.

“This is because the issues involved, particularly those concerning the minor children of the estate, have prompted the court to grant an accelerated hearing in this suit from the beginning, as evidenced by the abridged days granted to parties.

“The Court therefore encourages learned senior counsel and parties to take advantage of this and ensure that the case is not unnecessarily prolonged in the interest of the minor children of the estate. The issue raised above is therefore resolved against the claimants. The application dated November 28, 2024, being unsustainable, is accordingly dismissed.”

READ ALSO: Rivers communities seek justice as London court hears environmental case

The claimants/applicants are seeking the court to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order against Access Bank Plc, Coronation Merchant Bank Limited, and United Securities Limited to disclose information on the dividend shares and other financial transactions of the deceased person.