IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY Page 1 HOLDEN AT HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE APO ABUJA ON THE 6 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: - HON. JUSTICE M.A NASIR COURT NO.:- HIGH COURT TWENTY TWO (22) SUIT NO.:- FCT/HC/CV/1722/2010 BETWEEN: 1. SAMUEL ANIBE IDOKO 2. JANET OLOJO IDOKO PLAINTIFFS AND 1. EMMANUEL ACHILE IDOKO 2. MRS REBECCA UMATA IDOKO 3. MURTALA OPOOLA 4. CHARLES CHUKWUMA UNEGBU 5. MR. OLUKEYE JIDE DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT This suit was filed in The plaintiffs and 1 st and 2 nd defendants are members of the same family, and their dispute started after the death of their father John Ameh Idoko. The two plaintiffs and the 1 st and 2 nd defendants are also joint administrators/administratrix of the deceased estate. Due to the nature of the case, this Court made all efforts to see that the parties settle out of Court but all attempts proved abortive. Even after the commencement of hearing, this Court pursuant to the provision of Order 17, of the rules of Court, directed parties to explore settlement using the alternative dispute resolution mechanism at the Abuja Multi-door Court House (AMDC). Even at the Multi-

2 door, the parties could not agree to settle. The case eventually proceeded to hearing. The plaintiffs vide an amended statement of claim dated 4 th of February, 2013 claims against the defendants as follows: 1. The sum of N9.2 Million being yearly rents jointly and/or severally collected in respect of the three blocks of three bedroom flat/apartments which is contained in the Estate of John Ameh Idoko (deceased) which said apartment is lying and situate at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent at Utako Abuja beginning from the year 2006 till April, 2010 and also the sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) collected as gratuity of the late John Ameh Idoko which was paid into Account No with Zenith Bank Plc and of which various sums of monies was unilaterally withdrawn by the 1 st defendant from the said account with the active connivance and collusion of the 2 nd defendant. (a) The 1 st and 2 nd plaintiffs claims also jointly and/or severally from the 1 st and 2 nd defendants the total sum of N3,725,235.56K (Three Million Page 2

3 Page 3 Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira, Two Hundred and Thirty Five Naira and Fifty Six Kobo) which said sum the 1 st defendant with the connivance and collusion of the 2 nd defendant withdrew from the deceased account in various banks i.e. (Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Abuja (the sum of N37,531.79K), First Bank of Nigeria Plc (the sum of N3,240,825.96K) and Oceanic Bank International Plc (the sum of N446,877.81K) without the written consent or written concurrence of the plaintiffs. 2. A declaration that the 1 st and 2 nd defendants cannot jointly and/or severally appropriate or use up the said monies i.e. the sum of N9.2 Million collected as yearly rents in respect of the said landed property which is contained in the estate of John Ameh Idoko (deceased) as well as the sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) which has been collected and spent or used by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants as deceased gratuity without written consent and/or written knowledge or concurrence or authorization of the plaintiffs. 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants from further paying any

4 Page 4 yearly rent or rents in respect of the various apartment where they are presently occupying at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako, Abuja to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. 4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1 st and 2 nd defendants jointly and/or severally from further collecting any yearly rent or rents from the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants in respect of the entire apartment being occupied by them at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako, Abuja. 5. An order of this Court that the 1 st and 2 nd defendants cannot jointly and/or severally collect the said rent of N9.2 Million from 2006 till April, 2010 from the tenants as well as the sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) being the gratuity of the deceased without written consent or concurrence of all the administrators of the Estate of late John Ameh Idoko. 6. A declaration of this Court declaring as illegal, null, void and of no effect the purported document titled Notice to tenants on their legal occupancy of the apartments orchestrated by 1 st and 2 nd defendants. 7. An order of this Court setting aside the purported letter written to the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants titled

5 Notice of tenants on their legal occupancy of the apartment which was orchestrated by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. 8. A declaration of this Court that the unilateral act of the 1 st defendant by managing, controlling, administering the deceased Estate in connivance of with the 2 nd defendant by collecting yearly rents between 2006 till April, 2010 from the tenants at the apartment is unconstitutional, illegal, null, void and of no effect. 9. A declaration of this Court that any act of the 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th defendant by previously paying yearly rents to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants and by also making effort to paying further yearly rents to the 1 st defendants as landlord of the said apartment is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and of no effect. Alternatively 1. An order of this Court mandating the 1 st defendant in connivance with the 2 nd defendant to render account or make payments into the registry of the Court or into any registry of the FCT High Court or the probate registry the entire sum of monies which are as follows i.e. Page 5

6 (a) The sum of N9.2 Million collected as rents from 2006 till April, 2010 as well as (b) The entire sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) collected by the 1 st defendant as gratuity of the deceased in order to enable the monies to be legally administered appropriately by the appropriate legal authority or after all the said monies are paid into the appropriate registry of this Court by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants for the purpose of its proper administration of same. 2. The 1 st and 2 nd plaintiffs claims also jointly and/or severally from the 1 st and 2 nd defendants the total sum of N3,725,235.56K (Three Million Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Naira, Two Hundred and Thirty Five Naira and Fifty Six Kobo) which said sum the 1 st defendant with the connivance and collusion of the 2 nd defendant withdrew from the deceased account in various banks i.e. (Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Abuja (the sum of N37,531.79K), First Bank of Nigeria Plc (the sum of N3,240,825.96K) and Oceanic Bank International Plc (the sum of N446,877.81K) without the written consent or written concurrence of the plaintiffs. Page 6

7 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants from further paying any yearly rent or rents in respect of the various apartment where they are presently occupying at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako, Abuja to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. 4. An order of Court directing or ordering the 1 st and 2 nd defendants to either jointly and/or severally render or deliver forthwith the account of all monies collected as yearly rents in respect of the said apartments where 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th defendants are presently occupying at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako, Abuja and to also make available to this Court the total sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) collected as gratuity of the deceased which was spent by 1 st defendant which was done without the written concurrence of the plaintiffs. 5. An order of this Court that the 1 st and 2 nd defendant cannot jointly and/or severally collect the said sum of N9.2 Million from 2006 till April, 2010 from the tenants as well as the sum N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Kobo) being gratuity of the deceased without the written consent or concurrence of all the Page 7

8 administrators of the Estate of the late John Ameh Idoko. 6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1 st and 2 nd defendants jointly and/or severally from further collecting any yearly rents from the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants in respect of the entire apartment being occupied by them at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako, Abuja. PW1 who is the first plaintiff testified that the deceased left several developed landed properties, subsequent rents to be collected as well as sums of money in some bank accounts i.e. Union Bank Plc, First Bank of Nigeria Plc and Oceanic Bank International Plc. The 1 st defendant however in connivance and collusion with the 2 nd defendant unilaterally withdrew from the accounts in the above stated banks without the written consent of the 1 st and 2 nd plaintiff. The 1 st defendant equally unilaterally collected rents from the 3 rd,4 th and 5 th defendants who are tenants in the Estate of the deceased at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent Utako Abuja between the period of 2006 to 2010 totaling N9.2 Million. The 1 st and 2 nd defendant equally collected and Page 8

9 spent the gratuity of the deceased amounting to N11,125,063.00K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira) paid into Zenith Bank Plc without the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff instructed their solicitor to write to the 3 rd to 5 th defendants not to pay any further rent to the 1 st and 2 nd defendant and also to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants not to collect any further rent from that property. This was not heeded to by the 1 st and 2 nd defendant. 13 exhibits were tendered through the witness Samuel Anibe Idoko. They are:- 1. Tenancy agreement between the 1 st defendant and 3 rd defendant and 4 th defendant from 2006 to 2010 marked as Exhibits A and A1 respectively. 2. Letter written to the 3 rd to 5 th defendants not to pay yearly rent to the 1 st and 2 nd defendant as well as the further letter of reminder written to the 3 rd to 5 th defendants not to pay rents to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants marked as Exhibits A2 and A3 respectively. 3. Letter written to the 1 st and 2 nd defendant dated 15 th February, 2010 not to collect yearly rent on the property and another tenancy agreement between Page 9

10 the 1 st defendant and 5 th defendant marked as Exhibits A4 and A5 respectively. 4. A copy of the letter administration without will and affidavit of next of kin dated 26 th of July, 2006 marked as Exhibit A6. 5. Notices of increase of rent and renovation of the premises both dated 17 th September, 2007 and 10 th November, 2009 collectively marked as Exhibit A7. 6. Statements of account from Zenith Bank Plc and two Oceanic Bank Cheques dated 12 th February, 2007 marked as Exhibits B and B1 respectively. 7. Notice of tenant of their legal occupancy of the apartment dated the 23 rd of March, 2010 marked Exhibit B2. 8. Zenith Bank Cheque to the tune of N1 Million in the name of Idoko Emmanuel Achile dated 27 th of March, 2010 marked as Exhibit B3. 9. Deed of Assignment between Emmanuel Achile Idoko with Junog Hotel Ltd dated 6 th of February, 2009 marked as Exhibit B4. PW1 was cross examined but was not re-examined. Page 10 Upon service of the process on the defendants, 1 st and 2 nd defendants filed a joint statement of defence and called

11 one witness. DW1, the 1 st defendant on behalf of the 2 nd defendant, testified that after the death of their father all the family members had a meeting and a decision reached for the withdrawal of sums of money for a befitting burial of their father. That he was authorized by members of the family including the plaintiffs to act on behalf of the family in respect of the property to which he introduced himself to the 3 rd to 5 th defendants vide a letter as the landlord of the property. DW1 stated that the rent is the only source of income for the immediate family of the deceased and whenever the rents are collected, a meeting of all the administrators is called and decision reached on how the monies will be disbursed to meet the needs of the family. The witness testified that the gratuity of their father was paid into a joint account opened by him and the 1 st plaintiff, and they both made withdrawals from the said account. He admitted collecting a total of N8.2 Million as rent on the property between 2006 to 2009 from which some amounts were disbursed to the 1 st plaintiff to assist him settle his rent. DW1 was cross examined but was not re-examined. Page 11

12 The 3 rd 5 th defendants who are tenants in the property at IBM Haruna Crescent Utako Abuja were duly served with the writ of summons and statement of claim. This was followed by service of hearing notices at every sitting of the Court. They have chosen not to file any process in defence of this suit. At the close of evidence written addresses were filed by counsel representing the parties. Israel Usman Esq filed the 1 st and 2 nd defendants written address dated 17 th December, 2012 wherein he raised three issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether or not the claim for accounts is not inconsistent with a claim for damages for misappropriation. 2. Whether or not a Court can made a finding of wrong doing such as misappropriation before accounts are given. 3. Even if damages could be awarded, whether or not these plaintiffs are entitled to any such damages. Counsel submitted that a claim for accounts is made by a plaintiff who is in the dark as to how monies came and were spent. That it is not practicable or possible for the Page 12

13 Court to make a finding of misappropriation before it orders for accounts. Counsel argued that the monies in question belong to the estate and not the beneficiaries, or even the administrators and until such money is appropriated to the beneficiaries, all monies are vested in the estate. He opined that the allegation of criminal misappropriation, breach of trust and theft are serious criminal allegations under the Penal Code and the claim of the plaintiff for damages is based on these criminal allegations. He submitted that the plaintiffs case ought to fail as any claim has to be to the estate.counsel urged the Court to order for accounts to be rendered by the defendants. J.O Adele Esq filed the plaintiffs written address and raised 3 issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether by the evidence placed by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants before this Court they should not be held liable for solely administering the Estate, Bank Accounts, cash, gratuity and other source of income in the deceased Estate without the written consent of the 1 st and 2 nd plaintiffs. Page 13

14 2. Whether from the evidence placed by the 1 st and 2 nd plaintiffs before this Court and the circumstances of this case the plaintiffs are entitled to their claim. 3. Whether from the circumstances of this case, the 1 st and 2 nd defendants have not acted malafide towards the plaintiffs in respect of the administration of the Estate, Bank Account, cash, shares and gratuity of the deceased. Counsel submitted that the evidence placed before this Court by the defendants has not in any way exonerated them from liability, and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. He added that the position of the law is that documentary evidence supercedes oral evidence and documentary evidence makes oral evidence more credible. He cited Obiazikwor vs. Obiozikwor (2007) 37 WRN 106 at 111 at 131, Olubodun vs. Lawal (2008) Vol. 51 WRN SC 1 at 26. Counsel further submitted that the administrators needed to act together but in this instance, it was not the case and therefore the Court should declare the act of the 1 st defendant who solely administered the estate as null and void ab initio. Reference was made to Ibrahim vs. Ojomo (2004) All FWLR (part 199) 1285 at 1290, Uddoh vs. Uddoh (2010) All FWLR (part 535) 431. Page 14

15 It is the argument of counsel that the defendants pleaded the summary of income and expenditure but same was not tendered in evidence, and that pleadings not supported by evidence are deemed abandoned. He cited Enugu State Civil Service Commission vs. Geofrey (2007) 21 WRN 144 at 150, Adu vs. Gbadamosi (2009) 19 WRN 178 at 181, Agbareh vs. Mimra (2008) 12 WRN 1 at 12, Alkali Edv Consultings vs. Yobe State Government (2012) All FWLR (part 627) 780 at 781, A.G. Ferrero & Co Ltd vs. Henkel Chemicals (Nig) Ltd (2011) All FWLR (part 587) 647 at 649. Air France vs. Okwudiafor (2012) All FWLR (part 639) 1156 at Also, that since there is no minutes of meeting or any document authorizing the 1 st plaintiff and 1 st defendant to jointly or separately make withdrawals from the said Zenith Bank joint statement of account, such acts of the 1 st defendant is null and void and of no effect. Reference was made to Ogbeide vs. Osifor (2007) 37 WRN 61 at 66. Mr. Adele argued that the rent collected on the property is not N8.2 Million as the documentary evidence in respect of the rent in this case amounts to N9 Million though the plaintiffs have claimed for the sum of N9.2 Million. That the Court has the power to grant the sum of N9 Million. Reference was made to A.G. Federation vs. AIC Ltd (2000) Page 15

16 10 NWLR (part 675) 293 at , Ogunyade vs. OShunkeye (2007) 44 WRN 1 at 5. He stated also that since the defendants have admitted collecting the sum of N8.2 Million as rent, the Court should consider that piece of evidence as an admission. He cited Doherty vs. Doherty (2009) 30 WRN 96, Iyere vs. Bendel Feeds & Foods Mill Ltd (2009) 3 WRN 139. Counsel went on to submit that the claim which is made in alternative is allowed in law and cited Newbreed Org. Ltd vs. Erinmosele (2006) All FWLR (part 307) at Counsel concluded by submitting that the 1 st defendant in connivance with the 2 nd defendant who is his mother, appropriated the property of the deceased estate to himself without reference to the other administrators who are the 1 st and 2 nd plaintiffs. He cited Ibrahim vs. Osunde (2009) All FWLR (part 465) He urged the Court to grant the plaintiffs the reliefs they claim. From the totality of the evidence adduced at trial both oral and documentary, the question is whether the plaintiff has proved his entitlement before the Court. Page 16

17 The plaintiffs case before the Court as earlier stated is that they as joint administrators/administratrix of the estate of their late father did not derive any benefit from the administration of the estate which was dominantly administered by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants on record. They also took decisions unilaterally without the consent of the plaintiffs. i.e. increasing and collecting yearly rents in the property left by the deceased. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants connived and collected the sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Two Kobo) being the deceased gratuity and administered same without the written consent of the plaintiffs. By virtue of Section 138 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof of a fact is on the party who asserts the affirmative of the fact. In other words, he who asserts must prove. See Obayan vs. Unilorin (2005) 15 NWLR (part 947) page 123 at 140, Organ vs. Nig. Liquified Gas Ltd (2010) All FWLR (part 535) page 293 at 340. Page 17

18 The plaintiffs have tendered exhibits to show the correspondences between the 1 st defendant and the 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th defendants concerning the property at No. 31 IBM Haruna Crescent at Utako Abuja. Exhibit B is photocopy of the cheques issued in the names of the 1 st plaintiffs and 1 st defendant from the office of Establishment and Pension being the gratuity of the deceased, while Exhibit B1 is the statement of account of the 1 st plaintiff and 1 st defendant maintained with Zenith Bank Plc. PW1 in his evidence stated that the 1 st defendant cleared the sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Two Kobo) on the cheques without reference to the plaintiffs on how best to disburse the money to other beneficiaries. And that the amount of N9.2 Million collected as rent for the property has not been remitted to the plaintiffs. Exhibits A2 and A3 are letters written to the tenants not to remit any sum of money as rent to the 1 st defendant, while Exhibit A4 is written to the 1 st defendant. Now what do I have as defence of the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. DW1 (1 st defendant) who testified for and on behalf of the 2 nd defendant contended that he has the support and authority of not only his fellow administrators Page 18

19 but every other member of the family who are beneficiaries of the estate. Through his claim and oral evidence, the 1 st defendant sought to render accounts of the monies collected and expended for and on behalf of the estate. The Court was therefore eager to see through his presentation of the case, exhibits which would have vindicated his position, but these exhibits though pleaded, were not tendered in evidence. No written authority of any family member was tendered. DW1 also did not tender the Zenith Bank statement of account No to buttress the point that withdrawals were made by the 1 st plaintiff from the account, nor did he tender the statement of account of Stanbic IBTC Asset Management of I. Ojonnuwa Enterprises to show the 2 Million shares left by the deceased, out of which 1.9 Million units were traded. The witness however admitted collecting the sum of N8.2 Million as rent on the property from 2006 to The breakdown of the rents collected, though pleaded was not tendered as exhibit. The 1 st defendant also stated that various sums of money was paid into 2 nd plaintiffs account apart from the physical cash given to her and pleaded her First Bank of Nigeria Plc and Oceanic Bank Plc statements of accounts, but failed to tender both statements in evidence. Page 19

20 1 st and 2 nd defendants also alleged that as agreed by all administrators/administratrix, 20 forms of Mel Endless Multi Network forms were purchased amounting to N270, (Two Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira) per each beneficiary at a total cost of N3,240, (Three Million, Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) for 12 people. The identification card pleaded was also not tendered in evidence. The 1 st and 2 nd defendants did not bother calling any of the remaining beneficiaries to testify on their behalf, not even one Thompson Idoko who was alleged to have been collecting some of the cheques paid as rent from the 3 rd 5 th defendants. Though the 1 st defendant has been constantly requested to render account on all the monies collected, he has failed to do so, and the comprehensive income and expenditure of the estate of the deceased which he pleaded, was not tendered in evidence. Pleading is not synonymous with evidence and so cannot be construed as such in the determination of the merit or otherwise of a case. Thus, a party who seeks judgment in his favour is required by law to produce adequate credible evidence in support of his pleadings and where there is none, then the averments in the pleadings are Page 20

21 deemed abandoned. The same principles of law goes for whatever defence a defendant seeks to rely on in the process of demolishing the case against him. See Arabambi vs. Advance Beverage Ind. Ltd (2005) 19 NWLR (part 959) page 1. The pleadings of the 1 st and 2 nd defendants which have not been supported by credible evidence before this Court and therefore abandoned, are accordingly struck out. It is trite to state that an administrator or administratrix is the owner of all goods and chattels belonging to the deceased. See Iwenofo vs. Iwenofo (1975) NSCC page 408. It is their duty to protect the estate of the deceased as the legal interest in the estate of the deceased is solely vested on them as empowered by law. See Michael O. Okonyia vs. Nnamdi Ikengah & anor (2001) 2 NWLR (part 697) page 336, Madam Abomowu Odusoga vs. L.L. Ricketts (1997) 7 NWLR (part 511) page 1. From the totality of the evidence led in this case, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs who have led credible evidence are entitled to judgment in their favour. It is noted that the plaintiffs have claimed certain reliefs as earlier stated in this judgment and also claimed in Page 21

22 the alternative, the rendering of accounts of certain sums of monies on record by the 1 st and 2nd defendants. This Court from the evidence adduced has been told that there are other beneficiaries of the estate, and they are not parties before this Court. I have also averted my mind to the provisions of Order 49 Rule 41 of the then rules of Court 1991 annexed to the Letters of Administration issued by the Court and tendered as Exhibit A6 by the plaintiffs. Rule 43(1) of Order 49 therein provides: Every person to whom a grant of probate or Letters of Administration has or have been made, and every administrator appointed by the Court shall, if called upon by the Court so to do file in Court the accounts of his administration and shall thereafter file such further periodic accounts as the Courts may direct until the completion of the administration. At this point since the defendants have stated that they spent the monies accruing to the estate among all the beneficiaries, the Court asking them to pay the monies to only the plaintiffs will not be realistic. The Court will not act in futility. Page 22

23 Where there are more than one administrator or administratrix to an estate, their rights and interest is joint, they must operate together, and the giving out of such right or interest by some of them to any one does not bind the others who do not give their consent thereto. See Yusuf vs. Dada (1990) 4 NWLR (part 146) page 657. It is also wrong in law for an administrator/administratrix of an estate or anybody claiming through him to assimilate that property to his own. Equity will not even permit that under any guise. To say the least, it is gross abuse of office. Administrators or executors are trustees of the property placed in their care, so to say, on trust for the beneficiaries. See Ibrahim vs. Osunde & ors (2009) LPELR 1411(SC). It is therefore wrong for the 1 st and 2 nd defendants to administer and take decisions unilaterally concerning the estate of the deceased without the consent of other administrators. And since the fiduciary duty of the 1 st and 2 nd defendants is not only to the plaintiffs, but to the entire estate and beneficiaries of the estate, and considering the fact that the provisions of Order 49 Rule 41 of the rules of Court envisages a formal filing of accounts/expenditure, this Court is more inclined to granting the alternative prayer of the plaintiffs, which is for the 1 st and 2 nd defendants to render Page 23

24 accounts. This in my considered view will safeguard the estate of the deceased, and the interest of all beneficiaries. Consequently, the 1 st and 2 nd defendants are given 3 months from the date of this order to render accounts of their administration to the Probate Registrar as it relates to the following: 1. The sum N8.2 Million admitted by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants which is collected as rent from 2006 till April, 2010 on the landed property at No. 31, IBM Haruna Crescent, Utako Abuja. 2. The entire sum of N11,125,063.72K (Eleven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Sixty Three Naira and Seventy Two Kobo) being the gratuity of the deceased. 3. Total sum of N3,725, (Three Million, Seven Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirty Five Naira and Fifty Six Kobo) withdrawn from the account of the deceased, maintained at Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, First Bank Plc and Oceanic Bank International Plc. 4. In rendering the accounts, the 1 st and 2 nd defendants must support same with all relevant documentary evidence. Page 24

25 5. Any other/further subsequent amounts collected/to be collected as rent on all the properties left by the deceased listed on the letters of Administration Exhibit A6, uptill the date the account will be rendered, must be paid into an interest yielding account to be opened by the Chief Registrar of this Court. To this Extent therefore the 3 rd 5 th defendants shall cease to pay rents to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants and be bound by the order of this Court. Signed Honourable Judge Appearances: A.E. Adele with him Aromeh Sule Esq for the plaintiff E.A. Durkisha for the 1 st and 2 nd defendants holding the brief of J.U. Usman 3 rd 5 th defendants absent and not represented Page 25