Daniel & Ors v Abiola & Anor

A common form grant of administration remains valid while probate proceedings concerning the will are pending. Commencing a probate action does not revoke the grant, and failure in that action does not make the grant void from the beginning. The court should preserve the estate pending resolution of the dispute and permit payments properly made for its benefit. Where valid administrators already exist, an administrator pending suit should not be appointed merely because probate proceedings are underway, particularly where there is strong evidence supporting the will under which the administrators act.

The claimants, appointed administrators of an estate, sought directions concerning the administration of the estate while proceedings were pending to establish the validity of a 1989 will and challenge a later will alleged to be forged. The applications included authority to receive monies held by Doctors Healthcare Company Limited and to pay certain professional fees. During the hearing, the claimants accepted that any order should be limited to payments benefiting the estate whichever will proved valid.

The central issues were the continuing validity of the existing grant, whether a grant pending suit should be made, and the scope of the court’s directions for preservation and administration of the estate.

1. The existing common form grant remained valid pending determination of the probate action. Commencement of the action did not itself revoke the grant. If the claimants failed in the probate action, the grant would be revoked from judgment, but would not be void ab initio. The court relied on Hewson v Shelley [1914] 2 Ch 13 (C.A.) by way of comparison.
2. Lodgement of the grant with the court under CPR 57.6(2) did not affect its validity. Although section 117 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 permitted a grant of administration pending suit where proceedings concerning the validity of a will or a grant were pending, it would be wrong to make such an appointment while validly appointed administrators remained in office and there was strong evidence that the 1989 will was valid.
3. The court’s policy was to ensure that necessary steps were taken to preserve the estate pending resolution of the dispute and that sums due for services rendered for that purpose were paid. The claimants were therefore authorised to give a good receipt for monies held by DHCL and to make payments ordered by the court, together with other payments properly made for the benefit of the estate.
4. The order did not prevent the First Defendant from pursuing a claim that the relevant shares had been given to her during the deceased’s lifetime. If doubt arose about a particular payment, the claimants were directed to apply without notice to the Master for directions.