The Court of Appeal in Abuja has set aside a consent judgment that made Mr Cyprian Okechukwu Igwe the sole administrator of the estate of the late Chief Joseph Uchechukwu Igweh.
A three-man panel led by Justice Adamu Jauro set aside the October 11, 2006 consent judgment entered by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja in a suit numbered FHC/ABJ/CS/237/2006.
This comes two months after a Federal High Court in Abuja granted an order of injunction restraining Cyprian from parading himself as Chairman/Managing Director of Bolingo Hotels and Towers Ltd.
Justice Babatunde Quadri declared that by virtue of a June 15, 2009 notice by the hotel’s board of directors and an ordinary resolution of July 6, 2007 that Cyprian should vacate office, he had been duly removed.
The court ordered Cyprian to render an account and disclose the hotel’s financial standing, having managed it from October 16, 2006 till last December 14 when the judgment was delivered.
The judge said the account should be rendered within 14 days from the judgment day.
Chief Igweh died on October 22, 2005 in the Bellview plane crash at Lisa village, Ogun State.
Two of his children, Chijioke and Chizoba, were shareholders in the hotel.
There was a disagreement over who should control the company.
The widow, Dr. Becky Igweh, was said to have made moves to excercise exclusive control.
She filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja, joining the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and the deceased’s children.
Cyprian, the first son, urged Chijioke and Chizoba, to return to the United Kingdom while he defended the suit.
Cyprian and Dr Igwe later reached a settlement agreement.
The terms of settlement, said to have been signed only by Cyprian, was made the consent judgment.
Part of the terms of settlement was that Dr Igweh would relinquish her shares in the hotel and be paid 10 percent of its value.
It was agreed that their late father’s will would be set aside while Cyprian would be the head of the family and handle the estate’s administration.
It further agreed that Dr Igwe would hand over all the estate’s title documents to him and she would in turn be paid N250,000 monthly for her upkeep.
It was agreed that Cyprian would be transparent in handling the estate’s affairs.
Upon assuming those responsibilities and being granted letters of administration, Cyprian allegedly declared himself Chairman/Managing Director of Bolingo Hotels and Towers.
The late Chief Igwe’s other sons – Joseph and Chuma, appealed the consent judgment in July 2017.
They asked the Appeal Court to determine whether the lower court was right to enter the terms of settlement as consent judgment when it was not signed by all the parties to the suit.
They argued that no evidnece was placed before the court to show that they all agreed to the terms.
The appellants also asked the Appeal Court to determine whether, having regard to Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the lower court was wrong to have entered the terms of settlement, which nullified the last will and testament of the late Chief Igweh and appointed the first respondent as the sole administrator, as judgment.
Cyprian, CAC, Bolingo Hotels and Towers and Mrs. Igweh were the respondents.
Justice Jauro held: “There is no evidence in the record of this appeal showing that the second defendant (Cyprian) communicated the terms of settlement to the first, third and fourth defendants in UK by phone or email and that they expressly consented to them.
“There is no evidence in the record of this appeal that shows that second defendant, upon taking over the management of the third respondent in pursuance of the said terms of settlement, appointed the first, third and fourth defendants directors with executive portfolios and that they, therefore, had benefitted from the terms of settlement.
“The trial court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to grant reliefs one and six to 15 on the basis of terms of settlement as agreed upon by the parties.
“This is because the agreement or consent of the parties to submit those terms to it for adoption as its judgment cannot confer it jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters and grant reliefs outside its subject matter jurisdiction.
“It is settled by unending line of judicial decisions that a court cannot exercise a jurisdiction it does not have.
“The parties to an action before a court cannot by their agreement or consent enable a court to exercise jurisdiction that it does not have.”
Leave a Reply