High Court takes stand as family fights dirty over Herbert Wigwe’s estate
A Lagos State High Court Family/Probate Court in Ikeja has dismissed an application filed by the late Herbert Wigwe’s cousin Christian Wigwe and Pastor Shyngle Wigwe (Herbert Wigwe’s father) seeking the appointment of interim administrators for the estate of the former Access Bank Group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer.
In a ruling by Justice A.O. Adeyemi on February 6, 2025, the court resolved all the issues raised by the applicants and pronounced their claims unsustainable.
The applicants, Christian Wigwe and Pastor Shyngle Wigwe instituted suit number ID/7735FPM/2024 against Access Bank Plc, Coronation Merchant Bank Ltd, and United Securities Ltd.
They also named Uche Wigwe, Aigboje A.I.G. Imoukhuede, and Miss Otutochi Channel Wigwe as defenders under an order dated November 18, 2024
The applicants sought an order appointing Uche Wigwe, Shyngle Wigwe, Otutochi Wigwe, and two professionals—Zedra Trust Company (Isle of Man), a subsidiary of Zedra Corporate Solutions UK Limited (International Professional), and Pricewaterhouse Coopers Limited (Local Professional)—as interim administrators of the deceased’s estate pending the resolution of the substantive suit.
At the same time, the claimants requested an order placing the late banker’s minor children (Chituru David Wigwe, Wegu & Hannah Wigwe, and Okachi Great Wigwe) under the joint guardianship of Otutochi Wigwe, Uche Wigwe, Emeka Wigwe, Shyngle Wigwe, and the two professionals. Shyngle Wigwe would oversee their welfare.
They also prayed the court to grant authorisation for the interim administrators to maintain and ensure the welfare of Wigwe’s dependents, liaise with third parties regarding financial or property interests, submit monthly reports to the court, and obtain full disclosure from Access Bank, Coronation Merchant Bank Ltd, and United Securities concerning shares of financial interests held on behalf of the deceased.
However, after hearing both parties’ submissions, the court found that the applicants’ claims were identical to those in the substantive suit, rendering it inappropriate to rule on them at the interlocutory stage.
“The Court has listened to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel to the parties in this suit, and it is of the view that the issue for consideration is whether the Claimants/Applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court,” Justice Adeyemi stated.
Citing Section 24(1) of the Administration of Estate Law, Laws of Lagos State, 2015, the court held that it has the power to appoint an administrator pendente lite for a deceased person’s estate where there is a legal proceeding regarding the validity of the will or related matters.
However, the court stressed that the applicants’ prayers were identical to those raised in the substantive suit.
The court also referenced an existing judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, which had already appointed the third defendant as the legal guardian of the deceased’s minor children. It added that it could not review the judgement at the interlocutory stage since there was no pending appeal.
Justice Adeyemi thereby pronounced that the applications for appointing interim administrators and guardians were part of the substantive claims and, thus, could not be considered at this stage.
“The Contention of Learned Senior Counsel for the Claimants/ Applicants, that given the issues involved in this suit, there might be a protracted trial is not only unfounded but also preemptive.
“This is because the issues involved, particularly that of the minor children of the estate, have prompted the court to grant an accelerated hearing in this sult from the beginning, as shown from the abridged days granted to parties,” the court declared.
“The contention of Learned Senior Counsel for the Claimants/Applicants that the issues involved in this suit may lead to a protracted trial is not only unfounded but also preemptive. The court has already granted an accelerated hearing for this case, as evidenced by the shortened timelines for the parties.”
In conclusion, the Judge encouraged the learned counsel to ensure that the case was not unnecessarily delayed, particularly in the best interests of the minor children involved.
“The issue raised is therefore resolved against the applicants.
Consequently, the application dated November 28, 2024, is dismissed as unsustainable,” the judge held.
