June Ashimola & Anor v Ruth Samuel & Anor

The High Court may revoke a grant of letters of administration where the grant ought not to have been made, including where it was obtained using false, forged or concocted documents. The court’s probate jurisdiction under Senior Courts Act 1981, s 25(1)(b), permits revocation. Section 121 may also be exercised by the court of its own motion where the grant ought not to have been made. Revocation may be ordered on alternative grounds, including the applicant’s lack of entitlement or fraud in obtaining the grant. The court may draw adverse inferences where crucial evidence is withheld or a witness whose evidence is central does not attend trial.

The claim concerned a grant of letters of administration issued to Ruth Samuel as attorney for Bakare Olatoye Lasisi, who claimed to be June Ashimola’s husband. The claimants alleged that Ms Ashimola was alive, that the alleged marriage and death certificate were fraudulent, and that the grant should be revoked. The defendants relied on documents said to show Ms Ashimola’s death and Mr Lasisi’s entitlement to the grant.

The court determined whether Ms Ashimola was alive, whether the person bringing the claim was her, whether the alleged marriage existed, and whether the grant should be revoked under the court’s statutory or inherent jurisdiction.

1. Findings of fact. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that June Ashimola was alive and that the person who appeared remotely was the claimant and registered owner of the property. It found that she was not married to Mr Lasisi. The alleged marriage certificate, death certificate and probate power of attorney were found to be forged, fraudulently produced or concocted.
2. Evidence and adverse inferences. The court was entitled to draw adverse inferences from Mr Lasisi’s failure to provide reliable evidence of identity, file a trial witness statement or attend trial, because his evidence was central to the alleged marriage, the probate application and the grant. The court also placed little weight on Ms Samuel’s evidence where it was evasive, contradictory or unsupported.
3. Revocation jurisdiction. Section 25(1)(b) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 conferred jurisdiction to revoke the grant. The grant was revoked because Ms Ashimola was alive. In the alternative, it was revoked because the grant had been obtained using false or forged documents.
4. Section 121. Section 121(1) could be exercised by the court of its own motion where a grant ought not to have been made. The court rejected the submission that an interested party had to be separately before it. In any event, Ms Ashimola and Mr Shomotun, as her attorney, were interested parties.
5. Final orders. The grant was revoked under s 25(1), s 121 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The application seeking to remove Mr Shomotun from the proceedings was dismissed. A late application and new evidence filed after circulation of the draft judgment were dismissed because there were no exceptional and compelling reasons to reopen the case.

First-instance decision. The judgment does not state any appellate history.