Background
This case revolves around the estate administration in Nigeria, where the appellant, a property developer, entered into agreements regarding properties owned by the late M. E. Ojomo, which were administered by several heirs. Disputes arose when the appellees claimed the appellant acted without proper authorization from all administrators of the estate, leading to claims of trespass and damages.
Issues
The main issues identified in this case were:
- Whether the agreement (Exhibit D11) executed by only two of the administrators was valid under the relevant legislation regarding estate administration.
- Was the Court of Appeal right in holding that the agreement was void due to lack of consent from all the administrators?
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court determined that:
- For a valid conveyance under the Administration of Estates Law, all personal representatives must either execute the conveyance or provide evidence of their collective concurrence.
- The execution of the agreement without the third administrator’s consent rendered the transaction void, as a matter of law.
Court Findings
The court found that:
- The phrase "concurrence therein" requires the agreement of all personal representatives for a valid estate conveyance.
- Evidence was insufficient to prove that the former administrators collectively agreed to the redevelopment agreement, as only two of them signed the document and the third administrator explicitly denied any agreement.
- The appellant's claims to equitable interest in the properties did not hold because there was no lawful authority under the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by reaffirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The lack of consensus among the estate's administrators invalidated any agreements made without their collective permission.
Significance
This case underscored the principle that in matters of estate administration, the joint nature of the authority among administrators must be preserved. It serves as a critical reminder that agreements regarding real estate must comply with statutory requirements and cannot be circumvented through unilateral action or assumption of authority. The outcome emphasizes the necessity for clear communication and formal agreement among all parties involved in estate matters.