Egunjobi’s will: Four siblings, third spouse battle over Beachland Estate

The battle over the property of the late Egba Chief, Adedeji Ayinla Egunjobi, lingers with 4 of his youngsters suing his third spouse, Chief (Mrs) Adenike Victoria Egunjobi and their half-sister, Mrs. Olubusola Adeogun-Phillips, over issues regarding his will, writes ROBERT EGBE.    

The dying of Egba Chief, Adedeji Ayinla Egunjobi, on January 4, 2015 at 88 years, has resulted in surprising penalties for his household.

Four of Egunjobi’s youngsters – Mrs. Olufunmilayo Adeyemi; Mrs. Olufunke Akin-Deko; Mrs. Folashade Sapara and Mrs. Folake Abiose – from his first marriage to Madam Christiana Ogunrinde, approached a Lagos High Court in Igbosere on May 28, 2019 looking for correct administration of his Estate.

They are, in a go well with marked LD/2210FPM/2019, looking for to implement the desire of the veteran Chartered Accountant and former Chairman of worldwide conglomerate, Hagemeyer Plc.

Egunjobi, who was additionally the Akinbogun of Egbaland, left a will dated 21st December 2010.

Probate of the desire was granted by the High Court on November 16, 2017.

The Nation learnt that the named Executors of his will have been his third spouse, Mrs. Victoria Adenike Egunjobi; his eldest youngster, Mrs. Olufunmilayo Adetokunbo Adeyemi; his second youngster, Mrs. Olufunke Adetayo Akin-Deko and his fifth youngster, Mrs. Olubusola Motunrayo Adeogun-Philips, who’s the eldest youngster of the union between Egunjobi and his third spouse, Adenike.

‘Do not be greedy’

The Nation gathered that Egunjobi, maybe anticipating resistance by among the beneficiaries of his Estate, admonished in his will, that they shouldn’t be grasping, “as no one came to this world with anything and so will leave the world with nothing, just like me”.

To create a degree enjoying subject, Egunjobi named his third spouse, Adenike and all his 9 youngsters, from each his first and third wives, as beneficiaries in his will in equal shares.

But of their go well with, the claimants contended by means of their counsel Babajide Bodede that following his passing, Adenike “acted in complete bad faith by disregarding and frustrating the proper execution” of their late father’s will.

In explicit, the claimants alleged that Adenike and her daughter, Olubusola, executed an “unlawful and improper sale” of a property situated on No. 50, Sloane Street, Knightsbridge, London SW1X 9SN opposite to the needs of their late father.

They additional contended that though their father had made particular items of properties to their step mum for her use in the course of the the rest of her lifetime, the properties have been to go to all of the 9 youngsters and their offspring for his or her use, following her dying.

The Claimants additional alleged that regardless of Egunjobi’s clear directions in his will and with out their information and concurrence as Co-Executors thereof, Adenike and Olubusola, someday in May 2017, and in clear violation of the directions of their father’s will, offered the property situated in Knightsbridge registered as BGL61917 on the United Kingdom Land Registry following which, they transformed the proceeds thereof to their private use.

The Claimants additional claimed that though Adenike later admitted to having offered the mentioned property, she refused to render account for the proceeds derived thereof to their father’s Estate and that her actions on this regard have been supported by their half-sister, Olubusola who claimed the mentioned property belonged to her mom.

The Claimants additional contended that the refusal of Adenike and Olubusola to direct the solicitors to the Estate to re-seal their late father’s will within the United Kingdom and in Germany, was a part of their grand scheme to ignore and frustrate the correct execution of their father’s will and to allow them eliminate the property at 50, Sloane Street, Knightsbridge, London SW1X 9SN, with out their information and concurrence as Co-executors.

The Claimants alleged that though their late father, in his will, directed that First Trustees Limited be appointed because the Trustees to carry and handle a Trust Fund for all of the beneficiaries of his Estate, Adenike and Olubusola annoyed each try by the Executors to ask First Trustees Ltd, as a ploy to nook and applicable the earnings and advantages of all of the belongings and properties listed of their father’s will for his or her private use and to the exclusion of the Claimants, being the youngsters from his first marriage.

The Claimants additional challenged Adenike within the administration of Seaview Investments Limited, the holding firm for the household’s huge actual property enterprise.

The Nation learnt that Egunjobi had in his Will, directed that his 9 youngsters, shall function administrators and shareholders of the mentioned holding firm, the working of which was to be superintended by First Trustees Ltd.

They additional claimed that having bluntly refused to nominate the mentioned Trustee Company as instructed within the will, Adenike and Olubusola continued to run the affairs of the household enterprise with out concurrence of the opposite co-executors and beneficiaries.

In explicit, the Claimants contended that Adenike unilaterally appointed her second son, Olugbenga Egunjobi, as managing director and sole signatory to the accounts of the corporate.

The Claimants additional contended that Adenike, Olubusola and Olugbenga have continued to direct and management the administration and operation of the household enterprise, for the only real advantage of Adenike’s youngsters and to the exclusion of the Claimants who’re the youngsters of Egunjobi’s first spouse.

They additional averred that by taking custody of the unique title paperwork to their late father’s properties upon his dying, Adenike used her shut proximity to their father and her information of his belongings to frustrate the correct execution and administration of his will.

 

Buried within the mistaken place?

In explicit, the claimants cited the truth that Egunjobi had in  his will, directed that his stays have been to be buried at his residence in Lagos situated at Creek Crescent, Beachland Estate, Tin Can Island, Apapa, however, opposite to his directions and in opposition to their very own needs, Adenike insisted that he be buried in a church cemetery at Abeokuta.

The Claimants additional contended that Adenike’s alleged refusal to bury their father at his residence in Lagos as instructed in his will, was “a ploy to enable her and her children dispose of the said property at a later date free of any encumbrances.”

They alleged that by her actions, Adenike fully disregarded the needs and directions of their late father, and cornered the belongings and properties belonging to his Estate for the good thing about her 5 youngsters, together with Olubusola.

Reliefs

The Claimants are looking for from the Court amongst different issues, the elimination of Adenike as Executor of their late father’s Will.

They are additionally praying the court docket to direct Adenike and her daughter Olubusola, to render account of all of the belongings and properties of their late father along with the proceeds and earnings due and payable from the sale and administration of all the actual and private belongings and properties talked about of their father’s will, from January 4, 2015 until date.

In addition, the Claimants are looking for a declaration that the sale of the property situated at 50, Sloane Street, Knightsbridge, London SW1X 9SN, by Adenike and Olubusola was improper, invalid and opposite to their father’s directions in his will and subsequently null and void.

The Claimants additional prayed the court docket for an order directing Adenike and Olubusola to pay all of the proceeds they derived from the sale of the property situated at 50, Sloane Street Knightsbridge, London SW1X 9SN, into the Estate account.

 

Respondents object

In response, with out submitting any defence to the go well with, Adenike and Olubusola, by means of their Counsel Osho Oluyemi, on December 10, 2019, filed a Preliminary Objection praying the court docket to strike out the go well with and refer the events to arbitration, pursuant to an arbitration clause within the deceased’s will.

In their Counter Affidavit to the Defendants’ Preliminary Objection filed on December 17, 2019, the Claimants by means of their Counsel, argued that the alleged arbitration clause within the deceased’s will referred to the decision of disputes arising between the Trustees and the Beneficiaries, and as no such Trustees had been engaged, the clause was ineffective.

The Claimants additional argued that the motion introduced was not designed to problem any of the legacies created by the desire as contemplated by the Arbitration clause therein, however relatively, to hunt the correct administration of their late father’s Estate in accordance with the directions in his will.

At the sitting on  January 14, 2020, the court docket requested all events to be current in court docket on February 3, 2020.

However, on the resumed listening to on February 3, 2020, the Defendants’ didn’t seem in court docket, neither did they file any defence to the motion pending earlier than the court docket, following which, the Claimant’s submission that their Preliminary Objection be struck out, was upheld by the court docket.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *