Davina Haydon of Stephens Scown LLP’s Inheritance and Trust Disputes Team comments on an unusual Probate Claim in 2025 where the person challenging the administration of the estate was the Deceased – who turned out to be very much still alive.
When is estate litigation not estate litigation? In the case of the recent High Court case of Ashimola v Samuel [10/3/25] the answer would appear to be, where the Deceased was alive and did not agree with her estate being administered.
The judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in the High Court is a testament to the patience and precision of the judiciary in England and Wales in a highly unusual case which had everything Charles Dickens was dreaming of when he wrote of the fictional case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce in his novel Bleak House.
The claim was unusually brought by a Deceased – June Ashimola, and her attorney. They sought to revoke a Grant of Letters of Administration pursuant to section 121 Senior Courts Act 1981. The Grant had been issued to the defendant administrators one of whom was a man pretending to be Ms Ashimola’s husband. That is unusual in itself, but there was also an astonishing mix of additional problems including missing evidence, dishonest witnesses; fraudulent documents; allegations of forgery, impersonations and intimidation; incompetent “counsel”; inadequate trial bundles and skeleton arguments all causing delays and adjournments of hearings.
What Had Happened?
Ms Ashimola lived in Nigeria but had a property in London. She was keen to continue owning her property but had experienced problems with a third party (who was not directly involved in the proceedings) who had been trying to gain control of her property for a number of years.
Ms Ashimola then discovered that a Grant of Representation had been issued in October 2022 on the basis of false evidence submitted to the Probate Registry that Ms Ashimola had died without leaving a Will, in Nigeria.
The Grant was issued to the two administrators who applied for it, who were:
(1) Ruth Samuel who was the holder of a suspect probate power of attorney allegedly on behalf of:
(2) Bakare Lasisi who was said to be the husband of Ms Ashimola and who made a statement, but did not appear in court.
Despite requests to Ms Samuel for a full explanation of what had been submitted to the Probate Registry, she refused to explain what had been sent. As Ms Ashimola’s alleged death was supposed to have taken place in Nigeria, at the very least a death certificate from Nigeria would have been needed. It is likely that a marriage certificate identifying Mr Lasisi as the husband would also have been needed if it were claimed that the marriage took place in Nigeria as well.
Ms Ashimola believed that the Grant had been obtained dishonestly and fraudulently so that Mr Lasisi could claim her London property (and the rest of her estate) as her surviving spouse and he would then transfer it to the man who had been seeking control of that property for years.
The case was heard in the High Court, rather than as a criminal fraud trial. In the first instance, there was an urgent need to get the Grant of Representation revoked so that the property would not be transferred fraudulently.
Despite the difficulties before the Court in terms of how the case was presented and defended, the Deputy Master was able to reach a conclusion based on his assessment of the little reliable evidence presented to him with the most important evidence coming from the Deceased herself, giving evidence (remotely from Nigeria) that she was very much alive.
With Ms Ashimola alive (albeit unwell) and giving evidence that she was not married to Mr Lasisi, it was clear she was the victim of an attempted property and probate fraud.
With admirable understatement given the obvious difficulties with the evidence and in hearing the case, the Deputy Master said in his judgment that what had happened in the preparation for and conduct of the trial was “substantially beyond the norm”. Not only was the Deceased alive but the Deputy Master also concluded that Mr Lasisi did not exist and was “a complete fiction”.
The Deputy Master decided that Mr Lasisi’s witness statement, the marriage certificate to Ms Ashimola, her death certificate and Ms Samuel’s probate power of attorney were concocted documents which had been produced fraudulently. He was also not impressed by Ms Samuel’s evasive answers as a witness. He was satisfied that if the Grant was not revoked by the court, the property would be transferred via the concocted probate power of attorney to the man who had been attempting to wrest control of the property from Ms Ashimola and her attorney for years.
The Deputy Master’s decision thwarted these fraudulent activities.
The value of the net estate was £167,000 which may seem modest when compared to the cost of bringing the case, but it is important that not just big value estates are protected and that people like Ms Ashimola are able to access justice and protect their property.
It is also a case which highlights the determination of the judiciary not to be misled and to be determined and persistent in the face of parties who attempt to mislead the court with false and contradictory evidence and missing evidence of identities.
If there is a moral to this sorry tale, it should be that if you have valid concerns and suspicions about how a Grant has been obtained then you have a right to investigate and if you do uncover a fraud, the Court will take that as seriously as you do.
If you are seeking advice or have any questions in relation to this article, you can contact us by calling 0345 450 5558 or by emailing enquiries@stephens-scown.co.uk