Dispute over FRA Williams’ estate: Court refuses request for arbitration

high_court_lagos_federal

Lagos High Court has refused an application by two children of the late legal icon Chief Rotimi Williams - Folarin and

Lagos High Court has refused an application by two children of the late legal icon Chief Rotimi Williams - Folarin and Tokunbo – seeking to stay proceedings in a suit for the interpretation of the deceased’s Will.

The deceased’s first and second sons - Ladi and Kayode – had filed the suit last year praying the court to interpret the Will allegedly made by the late Chief Williams on June 22, 1954.

Rather than file a defence, Folarin and Tokunbo opted for the said application for the court to stay proceedings and refer parties to arbitration in line with a purported family agreement in which the deceased’s four children agreed to a pattern of sharing their late father’s estate.

The four surviving children of the late Williams had entered into the agreement shortly after their father’s death in 2005 on how his estate should be distributed, believing that their father died intestate.

In the process of obtaining Letters of Administration, the Probate Registry of the Lagos High Court was said to have discovered a holographic Will made by the deceased, dated June 22, 1954, which was later read before the said children.

After the reading of the Will, Ladi and Williams filed the suit in which they sought the court’s interpretation of its content, in response to which Folarin and Tokunbo filed the said application that the court should decline jurisdiction and refer parties to arbitration on the basis of the said 2005 agreement.

The applicants argued that the subject matter of the substantive suit was the manner of distribution of the deceased’s estate in respect of which parties had entered into an agreement, which would form the basis for the application for a letter of administration.

They stated that the said agreement contains an arbitration clause and urged the court to order a stay of proceedings and refer parties to arbitration in view of the said provision of the agreement.

Ladi and Kayode, in their counter argument, stated that the said agreement was procured by fraudulent misrepresentation and non disclosure of material facts and was consequently rescinded by the claimants (Ladi and Kayode) thereby rendering it null and void.

They argued that the agreement did not contemplate the existence of a Will and that since their father’s Will had not been pronounced invalid by any court, and the supposed revocation instrument was incompetent, the said Will remains the only document upon which the court can base its jurisdiction.

Ruling on January 31, Justice Joseph Oyewole upheld the argument by Ladi and Kayode and refused the application for stay of proceedings. He thus assumed jurisdiction over the case.

Justice Oyewole held that the suit "cannot be justifiably called a dispute arising from the said family agreement. That being so, the arbitral clause contained in the said family agreement cannot, accordingly be extended to the subject matter of this suit as to justify an order staying the suit in favour of arbitration as contained in the said family agreement.

"In totality therefore, I do not find merit in this application and I must accordingly refuse it. Motion fails and it is consequently refused," the judge held.

Further proceeding has been fixed for March 19