Ayonrinde & Anor v Oyemomilara & Anor

An appellate court may exceptionally interfere with a trial judge’s exercise of discretion where, although the judge was not wrong on the material before him, the court was not fully informed and allowing the decision to stand would cause serious injustice. This may justify restoring a claim, joining a properly interested party and directing a trial where a substantial dispute over succession remains unresolved.

The first claimant challenged letters of administration granted to the respondent, who claimed to be the deceased’s widow. The High Court dismissed the action because the claimant lacked sufficient standing, refused a late application to substitute another claimant and refused a short adjournment.

The claimant appealed, relying on new evidence that the proposed claimant might have a direct interest and authority to seek revocation. The central issue was whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the trial judge’s discretionary case-management decisions in order to prevent serious injustice.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal. Lord Justice Mummery delivered the principal judgment; Sir Martin Nourse and Lord Justice Judge agreed with it and with the proposed order.
2. The trial judge was correct to reject the first claimant’s two arguments on standing. The appointment as legal representative under O.5 Rule 7 of the County Court Rules was made for the County Court proceedings and did not confer standing in the Chancery Division to seek revocation of letters of administration. The power of attorney authorising the claimant to apply for and obtain letters of administration did not authorise proceedings to revoke a grant that had already been made.
3. An appellate court is ordinarily reluctant to interfere with a discretionary decision. The usual grounds include a misdirection in principle, failure to consider relevant matters, consideration of irrelevant matters or a plainly wrong decision. Those principles did not prevent intervention here.
4. This was an exceptional case in which the trial judge had not been fully informed about matters relevant to the discretion. More importantly, leaving the dismissal in place would create real injustice because the substantial dispute over which woman was the deceased’s wife had never been determined. The available evidence raised a substantial doubt about the respondent’s status and supported reconsideration of the proposed claimant’s position.
5. The will also required consideration in the future conduct of the proceedings. It appeared on its face to appoint an executor and to confer interests on persons other than the two women claiming to be the deceased’s wife. Its validity, and the effect of any marriage on it, could not be ignored.

The action was remitted to the Chancery Division for directions and trial by a High Court judge. The proposed claimant was joined in substitution for the deceased second claimant, and the injunction was continued on terms to be discussed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2001] EWCA Civ 1296, the appeal was allowed. The action was remitted to the Chancery Division for directions and trial, with the proposed claimant joined in substitution.
• High Court: His Honour Judge Weeks QC dismissed the action on the ground that the claimant lacked sufficient interest, refused joinder and a short adjournment, restored the grant of letters of administration and made a costs order.