•Family divided over late lawyer’s estate
In the Lagos social circle, the Rhodes family stands out. The late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) was an eminent member of the family. Nine years after his death, his family is squabbling over his multi-billion naira property, SEYI ODEWALE reports.
Nine years after the death of prominent Lagos lawyer and former Chairman of the National Sports Commission (NSC) Chief Babalola Rhodes (SAN), his children and relatives are locked in legal battles over his estate. In two separate suits before the Lagos High Court and the Federal High Court, the parties are laying claim to the estate of Rhodes, who died on October 8, 2004.
Novojo Farms and fisheries Company Ltd., Mrs Clara Oye Otoki and Olayinka Rhodes (Jnr) are plaintiffs in both suits in which Mrs Biola Babalola and Miss Mojisola Rhodes are defendants.
In a 45-paragraph statement of claim deposed to after filing a writ of summons at the Federal High in Lagos on July 23, last year, the plaintiffs said the defendants were no longer directors of the estate and farm.
They are seeking these reliefs: “An order that the defendants (ie Mrs Biola Babalola and Miss Mojisola Rhodes) ceased to be directors of NOVOJO Farms (the 1st plaintiff herein) pursuant to the instruction of the late Rhodes and the abandonment of their responsibilities to the 1st plaintiff for over 20 years;
“An order mandating the 2nd plaintiff to notify forthwith the documentation of the 1st plaintiff (NOVOJO Farms) with the Corporate Affairs Commission (the shareholding inclusive);
“An order mandating the defendants to return forthwith all documents taken pertaining to 1st plaintiff (NOVOJO Farms and Fisheries Company Limited);
“An order restraining the defendants or their agents from further hounding, threatening and using state security apparatus against the plaintiffs and
“An order restraining the defendants or their agents, from further parading themselves as directors of the 1st Plaintiff.”
The deponent to the document of claim, Mrs. Otoki (the 2nd plaintiff), who claimed to be of the same mother with the late Rhodes, averred that to keep the memory of their mother alive, they named Novojo Farms after her.
“The 2nd plaintiff avers that the late Rhodes and her were both of the same mother, who bears the name Novojo. Amongst the siblings of four to wit: i. Yinka Rhodes (Snr), ii. Babasola Rhodes (SAN), iii. Mrs Clara Oye Otoki (Nee Eweka) iv. Steven Osayande Eweka: she and the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) were the closest. In order to keep the memory of their late mother alive, the project was named after their late mother. Hence, the name Novojo Farms and Fisheries Company Ltd,” paragraph seven of the claim said.
The 2nd plaintiff avers that after the incorporation, the 1st plaintiff (NOVOJO Farms) applied to the Lagos State government for the allocation of land for the purpose of its objects. The government graciously granted the 1st plaintiff 38,496 hectares of land at Oko-Ado in Eti-Osa Local Government Area. The land was delineated on Survey Plan no LS/D/LA371. Certificate of Occupancy with registration no: Ag/23/23/1991 was effectively issued to the 1st plaintiff. The Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) is pleaded and shall be relied upon.”
Unable to secure long term loan for the farm, the late Rhodes, the deponent averred, sold a considerable number of plots to start the project.
“The late Rhodes sold considerable numbers of plots. Part of the money realised from the sale, the chief used in the development of the residential part of the land, i.e. the building of the farm house, gymnasium and recreation centre”, she said.
Mrs Oye Otoki went on: “The 2nd plaintiff avers that sometimes in late 1991 and in early 1992, she and the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) sat down to fully discuss the issue of the shareholding of the 1st plaintiff and who should be part of its directors, and whether they should mortgage their mother’s estate to raise fund.
In the process of the meeting, “the 2nd plaintiff avers that she and the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) agreed that the grand-children be intermittently brought in as directors to manage the project. Vide a registered resolution of the Board dated 14/4/1992; the 3rd plaintiff and the defendants were made directors. The resolution dated 14/4/1992 is pleaded and shall be relied upon.” The statement went further in paragraphs 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22.
“The 2nd plaintiff avers that sometimes in the mid/late 90s the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) had serious challenges with his two daughters-the defendants herein, and insisted that they should be stripped of his personal interests.”
Sometimes in 2000, the defendants deserted their father. Upon insistence of the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN), it was agreed that the names of Miss Biola Rhodes (Mrs Biola Babalola) and Miss Mojisola Rhodes (the 1st and 2nd defendants) be removed as directors and same to be replaced with Dr Bolaji Bamboye owing to his experience. The name of Mrs Clara Oritsejafor, the 2nd plaintiff herein, was amended to reflect her current marital status i.e. Mrs Clara Oye Otoki.”
She added: “That shortly afterwards, the late Chief Babasola Rhodes (SAN) began to have health issues and his health challenges stalled the drive to raise the needed fund to put 1st plaintiff into business. Money raised through sales of some plots was expended by Chief Babasola Rhodes for his health challenges.”
Chief Rhodes’ health challenges also stalled the steps taken to effect the changes in the particulars of directors at the Corporate Affairs Commission.
On the 25/10/2002, vide a letter with reference no ALHA/AGRIC/2635, the Lagos State revoked the grant of the Certificate of Occupancy for non-usage for the purpose it was granted. The Lagos State government however ceded 5.124 hectares of the revoked land not meant for agricultural purposes to the 1st plaintiff (NOVOJO Farms and Fisheries Company Ltd).”
Following the revocation, Mrs Otoki said she refunded some affected buyers whose Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) was revoked. She said in her efforts to carry out her brother’s wish in perfecting the documentation of the 1st plaintiff, Dr Bolaji Bamboye, the 3rd plaintiff and herself “agreed that the records of the 1st plaintiff be perfected with the Corporate Affairs Commission. And that the wishes of the late Chief Rhodes should be effected. “That the defendants’ names be formally removed as directors. The agreed shares of the late Chief Rhodes be allotted to Oladeji Rhodes, being the eldest son and also Oladeji Rhodes be made a director.”
She claimed that when the defendants heard about the steps being taken concerning the farm, they ‘vowed’ to use ‘Alausa power’ against everybody in NOVOJO Farms.
She said she received a letter from the chambers of Simmons Cooper Partners, acting as solicitors to the defendants that she should hand over the Will of the late Rhodes.
But the defendants in their 38-paragraph Statement of Defence denied almost all the paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ claim. In their statement of defence they denied paragraphs 2, 4, 6 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. They also rejected the claims in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45.
They admitted paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 11.
“Save and except as is hereafter expressly and specifically referred to as the defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Statement of Claim as if the same were hereinafter set out and traversed seriatim,” they said in their defence.
They said: “The insinuations contained in the statement of claim suggesting that the 2nd plaintiff is the Managing Director of the 1st plaintiff whilst the defendants are ex-directors of the plaintiffs.
“The defendant shall contend that sequel to the demise of their late father, Chief Babasola Rhodes no meeting of the Board of Directors or shareholders of the 1st plaintiff has been called to appoint any of the Directors as Managing Director or to remove any existing Director of the plaintiff.”
Contrary to paragraph 6 of the statement of claim that the sole promoter of the 1st plaintiff was their father, Chief Babasola Rhodes and the 2nd plaintiff was only invited to the company as a nominal director out of their father’s goodwill.
Pursuant to paragraph 9 above, the defendants averred that the second subscriber/shareholder in the first plaintiff named Mrs Olatowun Candide-Johnson (Nee Martins) on the 22nd of June 2012, transferred her one share in the 1st plaintiff to Mrs Abiola Babalola (Nee Rhodes), the 1st defendant.
The defendants aver that further to the facts averred in paragraph 14 above, the estate of the late Chief Babasola Rhodes and the 1st defendants are the only shareholders of the 1st plaintiff.”
They also averred that “the 2nd plaintiff scared away the defendants after their father’s death and surreptituosly tried to assert control over their father’s properties, including the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff never made any attempts to contact the defendants as her intention was to keep them away from their father’s properties and convert them to herself.”
When The Nation visited the disputed estate at Farm bus stop on Lekki/Epe expressway, nothing depicted the place as a farm. The main gate has been pulled down while the once beautiful farm house comprising a swimming pool, a gymnasium and recreation centre is no more. Save for the relics of the swimming pool, the land is bare with two or more buildings belonging to those that bought land from the late Rhodes, still standing.
A man, who pleaded not to be named, and lives in one of the quarters in the estate, described how the place was demolished last year when bulldozer pulled down the expensive farm house built by the late chief.
“My brother, if you were here when the house was pulled down you will weep for the family and wondered why they could not settle whatever quarrel they have among themselves. Although the family has money, but the wastage here last year was serious, he said.
Pointing to the relics of the swimming pool, he said: “This swimming pool is the only thing to show that there was once a house here. The bulldozer could not remove it.”
He said some portions of the land were being offered for sale, adding that people are buying them, oblivious that the said land is a subject of litigation.
“A plot of land is being sold for N20 million and people are buying them; only a few are left,” he said.
When told of the status of the land, he said: “That won’t be a problem it will be ratified after the case has been decided.”
