Blogger Widgets

Tuesday 3 June 2014

Sentence



Sentence is the last stage of the trial. If the court finds the accused guilty, it should either pass sentence on him or make an order – section 248 of the CPA, and the court may adjourn the case to some future day for this purpose.
For every distinct count of which the accused is convicted in a separate sentence should be imposed – Adesina v. Police (1956) 1 FSC 55, and until a sentence is passed, the trial of court of count has in effect not been completed by the court. So where the trial judge found the accused guilty on certain counts in the charge but failed to pass any sentence on any of these counts, the Supreme Court declined to uphold the convictions – Aigbe 7 Anor. v. The State (1976) 1 NMLR 184. If the sentence imposed for the distinct counts are imprisonment, they may be ordered to run currently.


Judgment


This is the final decision of the court. The court delivers its judgment at the conclusion of evidence and final or closing address which is the reasoned and binding decision of the court. Thus, the court delivers judgment after the presentation of the case for the prosecution and the case for the defence and addresses have been delivered by counsel to both parties.
The Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defined a judgment as the final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon matters submitted to it. It is the conclusion of law upon facts found or admitted by the parties or upon their default in the course of the case.


Appeals














BASIS OF APPEAL
Appeal as the resort to a superior court to review the decision of a lower court. An appeal is any proceeding taken by an aggrieved party to rectify an alleged erroneous decision of a court by bringing the decision before a higher court.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL
An appeal may be as of right or only with the leave of the court – sections 241 and 242 of the 1999 Constitution. Thus, a right of appeal exists only where it is provided for under an enactment.
Whether an appeal is of right or only with the leave of the court, the right of appeal must expressly be stated in a statute – The State v. Adili (1989) 3 SC (Pt. 1) 19.
Moreover, a party aggrieved by the decision of a trial court may appeal against that decision to a superior court. The parties to a criminal proceeding are the accused person and the prosecutor, and either or both parties may appeal if dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court – the accused person may appeal and the prosecutor may cross-appeal – Nafiu Rabiu v. The State (1980) 2 NCR 117.


Appellant's Brief of Argument (Sample Draft)





















(SAMPLE DRAFT)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
CASE No: ABJ/001/M8
APPEAL No:
BETWEEN
MUSA UGOCHUKWU                 -           -           -           -           -           APPELLANTS
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA     -           -           -           -           RESPONDENT
APPELLANT’S BRIEF OF ARGUMENT
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory delivered on the 16th June 2008 upon a charge of murder preferred against Rampam Alechenu and Musa Ugochukwu.




STATEMENTS OF FACTS
Rampam Alechenu and Musa Ugochukwu were arraigned at the High Court for Murder of Igho Adetokunboh. The accused persons at all material times occupied the same flat with the alleged deceased.  Igho Adetokunboh was said to have disappeared without any trace. The only evidence against the accused persons was the unexplained disappearance of Igho Adetokunboh.
A submission of No case to answer made by the accused persons was overruled by the learned trial Judge. The first accused was discharged and acquitted but at the same time convicted for conspiracy, while the second accused person was sentenced to death by firing squad and twelve strokes of cane without conviction.
The Appellants have now appealed against the judgment of the learned trial Judge.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
1.      Whether or not the trial Judge was right for convicting the 2nd Appellant for an offence not known to Law and in the alternative whether the 2nd Appellant could be sentenced without first being convicted.
2.      Whether the 2nd Appellant could be sentenced to death by firing squad in the circumstance of the case.
3.      Whether or not a valid judgment of the High Court can be delivered orally and whether there was a miscarriage of justice occasioned by the delivery of judgment out of time.
4.      Whether or not the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I:
It is a settled principle of Law that nothing is an offence unless it is prescribed by a written Law. Therefore, the person shall not be convicted for an offence unless the offence is defined in a written Law which also prescribes the punishment for the offence – Section 36(12)1999 Constitution.
In the instance, the accused persons/appellants were charged for an offence which is not known to the Penal Code. It is respectfully submitted that the Penal Code Act is the substantive criminal Law in the Federal Capital Territory and it contains no provision for the offence of murder, thus in the case of Aoko v. Fagbemi & Anor (1961) 1 ANLR 400, the accused person was charged, tried and convicted for adultery. On appeal, his conviction was quashed because the offence of adultery is not defined and penalized by the Criminal Code.
We therefore, pray this Honourable Court to quash the conviction of the 2nd Appellant for the offence of murder.
In the alternative, a sentence of a Court is premature in the absence of a conviction. A sentence is the pronouncement of punishment upon which the accused person after his conviction in a criminal proceeding. In Adamu & Ors v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt 32) 865, it was held that failure to enter a conviction before sentence may invalidate the judgment of the Court.
It is therefore submitted that the sentence of the Court is baseless without first convicting the accused because you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand.
ISSUE II:
Death penalty under the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code is to be executed by hanging. Section 273 of the CPC provides that death sentence shall be by hanging. The trial Court sentenced the 2nd Appellant to death by firing squad. It is humbly submitted that this is clearly contrary to the laid down principles of Law. A person can only be sentenced to death by firing squad upon conviction for armed robbery.
It is against this background that we pray this Honourable Court to set aside the sentence of the trial Court on the 2nd Appellant.
ISSUE III:
It is a fundamental constitutional provision that the judgment of the Court must be in writing – Section 294(1) 1999 Constitution; and Section 268(1) CPC. Any judgment delivered before it is reduced to writing, otherwise, it is an oral judgment and invalid in Law. In State v. Lopez (1968) 1 ALL NLR 356, the Supreme Court quashed an oral judgment of the High Court.
In the instant case, the trial Judge stated that there was no legal authority requiring his Lordship to write down a judgment. It is humbly submitted that the learned Judge acted in blatant disregard to the constitutional provisions and the procedural Law by delivering oral judgment. We urge this Honourable Court to declare the judgment of the lower Court invalid.
Furthermore, a High Court is required to deliver its judgment in writing not later than 90 days after the conclusion of evidence and final addresses. This is provided for under section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution. However, failure to in comply with the above invalidates the judgment only if the appellant suffered miscarriage by reason thereof.
It is the contention of the Appellants that they have suffered miscarriage of justice by reason of inordinate delay in the delivery of the judgment. In the instant case, final addresses were concluded on 12th December, 2007 and judgment was delivered on the 16th of June, 2008, that is, about 170 days after. It is strongly submitted that the Appellants have remained and languished in prison during this period.
Also by reason of the delay in the delivery of judgment, the learned trial Judge has lost track of the facts of the case. In fact his Lordship had to reconfirm certain facts from the Counsel while delivering judgment. It is therefore our humble submission that the Appellant have suffered injustice by reason of the delay in the delivery of judgment. We pray this Honourable Court to set aside, invalidate and nullify the judgment of the lower Court.
ISSUE IV:
It is an incontestable principle of Criminal Law that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt as depicted in Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, and Section 138 of the Evidence Act. For the offence culpable homicide punishable with death/murder, the prosecution must prove not only the death of the deceased but must also prove the cause of death, the act of the accused as the cause of death as well as the necessary mental element.
In the instant case, there was no evidence of the death of Igho. All that was established was the unexplained absence of Igho. It is our humble submission that the disappearance of Igho for a period of about six months is not enough to ground the presumption of death. Section 144 of the Evidence Act is to the effect that a person not heard of for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he was alive, is presumed to be dead unless otherwise proved.
The only logical conclusion from the foregoing provision is that the trial Court was in error in holding that six months is reasonable time to presume the death of Igho.
Also, there was nothing in the evidence before the trial Court linking the appellants with the death or cause of death of Igho if at all he is dead. It is humbly submitted that the learned trial Judge’s reliance on the principle of res ipsa loquitur is not only inappropriate in a criminal trial but also inconsistent with the Appellants constitutional safeguard of presumption of innocence under S. 36(5) of the Constitution.
Moreso, a person charged with a criminal offence may choose to remain silent during his trial – Section 36(11) of the Constitution; Section 160(a) of the Evidence Act; Section 112 of the CPC. Although, the Court may draw inferences from the silence of the accused as it thinks just in the circumstances of the case – Sugh v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 77) 475. It is the contention of the Appellants that the inference drawn by the learned trial Judge from the silence of the 2nd Appellant is not just and does not in anyway support the circumstances of the case.
On the whole, any doubt in the case of the prosecution is resolved in favour of the accused person(s). It is our humble submission that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore urge this Honourable Court to set aside the trial Judge’s decision and discharge and acquit the 1st and 2nd Appellant accordingly.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Appellants case before this honourable Court as established from the issues and arguments canvassed above, is that the decision of the trial Court is invalid and against the established principle of Law. Wherefore, the appellants pray this Honourable Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court and discharge and acquit the appellants.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
  1. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
  2. Evidence Act Cap E14 LFN 2004
  3. Criminal Procedure Code
  4. Penal Code
  5. Sugh v. State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 77) 475
  6. Adamu & Ors v. State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt 32) 865
  7. Aoko v. Fagbemi & Anor (1961)1 ANLR Pg 400

DATED THIS 23rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010.                                                                                                                                                               ___________________
Soulbeez Fortune Esq.
Counsel to the Appellant
                                                                                                No. 5, Nedu Drive
                                                                                                Lagos.
FOR SERVICE ON RESPONDENT:
Kayuba Ada
No. 5 Kubwa Close,
Lagos.

By Barr. Chigozie Ezekiel +2348034997413, victorezekielc@yahoo.com

PROBATE PRACTICE IN NIGERIA



PROBATE
c
MEANING OF PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
Probate is the legal certification of the validity of the Will; or an official copy of a Will that is legally certified as genuine and given to the executors.
Letters of administration is an official court order appointing someone as the administrator of a deceased person’s estate where no valid Will exists. An administrator, however, derives his powers to act from the grant of letters of administration, and where the letters of administration is not granted, an administrator cannot act.


Sample of Letter of Application

(Sample Letter of Application)

From.........................................                                                           Date.................... 20......
To:
The Probate Registrar,
Probate Registry,
High Court of Lagos State.
Sir,
IN THE ESTATE OF ..................................................................................... (DECEASED).
We hereby make application for a grant of the Will of ................................... late of ......................... (address of deceased) occupation .................................. who died at ................................... on the...................... day of ......................... 20.............
We are the.................................................. executors of the .......................................... deceased.


Sample Oath by Executor


(Sample Oath by Executor)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
IN THE MATTER OF ...................................................................................... (Deceased)
I ........................................................ of ....................... make Oath and say:
That I believe the paper writing hereto annexed and marked by ........................ to contain the true and original last Will of ............................... late of ......................................(address of deceased), and that ............................ the executor therein named , and that ................................. I will faithfully administer the real and personal property of the testator by paying his/her just dents and the legacies given by his Will so far as his real and personal property shall extend and the law binds me.


Sample of Inventory Form

Sample of Inventory Form
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
INVENTORY
In the name of ........................................................................................... (Deceased) (Otherwise.......................................................................................).
A true declaration of all the personal property of .......................................... late of ............................... (address of deceased) who died on the ..................... day of ......................... 20 ....... at ................................................


Sample of Form for Schedule of Debts and Funeral Expenses

Sample of Form for Schedule of Debts and Funeral Expenses)

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE (PROBATE REGISTRY) PART I SCHEDULE OF DEBTS In the Estate of ........................................................................................... (Deceased) Who died on the ......................... day of ......................................... 20 ........ SCHEDULE OF DEBTS DUE BY THE DECEASED N K Name and Address of creditor’s particulars PART II SCHEDULE OF FUNERAL EXPENSES 1. ............................................................................................... 2. ............................................................................................... 3. ............................................................................................... 4. ...............................................................................................
 

Sample of Affidavit of Witness of Handwriting of Deceased

Sample of Affidavit of Witness of Handwriting of Deceased

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS ATTESTING TO HANDWRITING OF DECEASED
In the matter of ............................................................................................. (Deceased)
I, ................................................... of ....................................... make Oath and say:
That I know and was well acquainted with ........................................... late of ..................................... (address of deceased), who died on the ..................................... day of ................................ 20............. at ................................... for many years before (and down to) his death, and that during that time, I have frequently seen him write and sign his name, whereby I have become well-acquainted with his handwriting and signature and having now, with care and attention inspected the paper hereto annexed, purporting to be the last Will of the said ......................... beginning thus ................................ ending thus ........................... I say that I believe (the whole body and contents of the said Will, together with the signature of ........................ thereto, to be of the handwriting of the said ................................................. deceased.
           
_______________
                    Deponent
Sworn to at the High Court Registry, Lagos.
Dated this ............. Day of ............... 20.....

BEFORE ME

_____________________
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS






Sample Affidavit of Due Execution

Sample Affidavit of Due Execution
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
IN THE MATTER OF ...................................................................................... (Deceased)
AFFIDAVIT OF DUE EXECUTION OF WITNESS ATTESTING TO A WILL
I .......................................................................... do hereby make Oath and say:
1.      That I am one of the subscribing witnesses to the last Will of ...................................... late of deceased (the said Will being now hereto annexed), bearing the ........................... day of ............................... 20 ............... and that the testator executed the said Will on the day of the date thereof by ................................ and the same now appears thereon in the presence of me, and of ................................ the other subscribed witness thereto .................................. of us being present at the same time and we thereupon attested and subscribed the said Will in the presence of the testator.
2.      That the said Will was previously to the execution thereof as aforesaid, correctly interpreted to the testator ........................... in our presence by ............................. of .................................. and the testator .................................. appeared perfectly to understand the same.

_______________
                    Deponent
Sworn to at the High Court Registry, Lagos.
Dated this ............. Day of ............... 20.....

BEFORE ME

_____________________
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS





Sample of Probate

Sample of Probate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
PROBATE
IN THE MATTER OF ...................................................................................... (Deceased)
BE IT KNOWN that on the ............................ day of ..................................... 20 ............
The last Will .................................................. (a copy whereof is hereto annexed) of ................................................. Late of ....................................... deceased, who died on the ....................................... day of ............................. 20 ............. at ....................................... and who at the time of ......................................... death had ................................... fixed place of abode at .......................... within the jurisdiction of this Court, was proved and registered in this Court, and that the administration of the real and personal property of the said deceased was granted by the aforesaid Court to ............................................................................ the ............................................................ executing ........................................ named in the said Will who having been first duly sworn.
Sworn under ........................................................... and that the testator .............................. died on the .................................................... day of ...................................... 20 ..............

___________________
Probate Registrar


Sample of Letters of Administration

(Sample of Letters of Administration)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS STATE
(PROBATE REGISTRY)
LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION (Without Will)
IN THE MATTER OF ...................................................................................... (Deceased)
Letters of Administration of the real and personal property of .......................... Late of ................................... (Deceased),
Who died on the ......................................... day of .................................... intestate, and who had at the time of ........................................ (his/her) death ........................................ (his/her) fixed place of abode at ..................................... within the jurisdiction of this Court were granted by this Court to ................................................... of ........................................

Sworn under ........................................................... and that the testator .............................. died on the .................................................... day of ...................................... 20 ..............

___________________
Probate Registrar




DAN-JUMBO v. DAN-JUMBO

DAN-JUMBO v. DAN-JUMBO (1999) 7 SCNJ 112
FACTS
Due to the death of Chief Emmanuel Erefa Jene Bonny who died leaving a Will (testate), the Probate Registrar invited his five children and read the Will to them.
The same day the Will was to be read, was the same day that the respondent filed a caveat attacking the Will on the ground that the signature on it was not that of Chief Bonny (their late father). The respondent and 1st to 4th appellants were the five children of the deceased.
The defendant (respondent) filed a caveat attacking the validity of the Will in the High Court of Rivers State and issued out a Writ of Summons to the 1st to 5th defendants (appellants) claiming for the revocation of the grant of probate in respect of the Will of late Chief Bonny made to the 1st to 4th defendants by the 5th defendant on 06/07/76 without notice to the plaintiff’s appeal against the validity of the said Will was pending.
The trial court held the grant of probate invalid and revoked it. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court that the Will be revoked and declared invalid, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously dismissed their appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court. Dissatisfied again, they further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
1.      Although an appeal against a decision will not operate as an automatic stay of execution against such judgment, the court should always consider the facts in the case as to whether such judgment if enforced will not render nugatory the obtained result.
2.      The Probate Registrar did not take the appropriate steps which he should have taken after the entry of caveat by the respondent, for he ought to have issued a notice to appear against the caveator, respondent, on behalf of the 1st to 4th appellants whose application for a grant had been stopped.
3.      The Probate Registrar was not entitled to grant probate to the other four appellants after conclusion of the case by the High Court when an appeal had been lodged against the judgment.
4.      There was no necessity to apply for a stay of execution as the lis was still pending and the Will was still in litigation.
5.      The taking of an administration with a Will annexed was obtained irregularly.
6.      The principle of lis pendens is that the law does not allow to the litigant parties to give to them during the currency of the litigation involving any property rights in such property so as to prejudice any of the litigating parties.
7.      A caveat cannot be sealed if the Probate Registrar has knowledge of an effective caveat.
8.      The caveator was entitled to be put on notice by the Probate Registrar before proceeding to make the grant (application for grant of probate is to be in solemn form). The grant of probate was irregularly obtained.

Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and stated that the trial court was right to revoke it, and the Court of Appeal was also right to affirm it.

OBUSEZ v. OBUSEZ

OBUSEZ v. OBUSEZ (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 430; (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 374) 227
CYPRIAN PETER OBUSEZ    ......................................................           APPELLANTS            
EDWARD OBUSEZ
V.
MRS. SYLVIA TECKIA OBUSEZ   .............................................           RESPONDENTS
ADEMOLA GIWA


FACTS
The 1st respondent (Mrs. Sylvia Teckia Obusez) and the deceased (Cornelius Paul Obusez) got married under the Marriage Act on the 8th of July, 1972, they were both from Delta State. The union produced five (5) children. Though, their relationship was not smooth as a couple.
On 29/5/88, Mr. Cornelius Paul Obusez was assassinated and he died intestate (without a Will) while residing at No. 17 Obokun Street, Ilupeju, Lagos. The 1st respondent was charged along with other persons for the murder of her husband. She was discharged.
The deceased was survived by the 1st respondent, his five children and the appellants, who are his full brothers. The 1st appellant was in fact, his twin brother, and the deceased was buried in his twin brother’s personal residence. During his lifetime in 1977, the deceased took out a life insurance policy naming the 1st respondent and his two children who were born in that time as beneficiaries.
After his death, the respondents instituted an action at the Ikeja High Court, Lagos praying the court that she (the 1st respondent), together with her five children were the only persons entitled to the estate of the deceased and an order that grant of letters of administration be issued to her and a friend of the deceased (the 2nd respondent). The appellants in response, filed a counter-claim in which they claimed that they were the only persons entitled to administer the estate of the deceased, and an order that the grant of letters of administration be issued to the appellants.
The trial court granted the prayers of the 1st respondent and held that under Nigeria’s law of succession to the estate of Nigerians who contract marriages under the Marriage Act, the 1st respondent and her children were the only persons entitled to the estate of the deceased, and that as beneficiaries of the estate, they were entitled to a grant of letters of administration to administer the estate. The trial court further held that it was proper and lawful that the 2nd respondent be appointed a co-administrator with the 1st respondent as all the children were minors. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the counter claim. On appeal to the Court of Appeal by the appellants, the decision of the trial court was affirmed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
On distribution of estate of deceased married under Marriage Act and who died intestate – The Supreme Court stated that by virtue of section 49(5) of the Administration of Estates Law, Lagos, where any person who is subject to customary law contracts a marriage in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act and such person dies intestate leaving a widow or husband or any issue of such marriage, any property which the intestate might have disposed by Will shall be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Law, notwithstanding any customary law to the contrary.
On Law applicable to succession to estate of the deceased married under Marriage Act and who died intestate in Lagos State – The Supreme Court stated that in respect of the succession to the real and personal estate of a person married under the Marriage Act and who dies intestate in Lagos, section 49(5) of the Administration of Estates Law of Lagos State is the applicable law and it does not matter whether section 36(1) of the Marriage Act which was applicable to the former Colony of Lagos had been repealed or not. However, both the Law and Act stated above enact that in the event of a spouse married under the Act dying intestate and being survived by his spouse and children, the surviving spouse shall succeed to two thirds (2/3) thereof and this makes the spouse a beneficiary of the estate and a qualified person to apply for Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased spouse.
On whether Items 60 and 67 of the Exclusive Legislative List, 1979 Constitution cover cases of succession to and administration of estate of intestate – The Supreme Court stated that by Items 60 and 67 (which are Items 61 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List, 1999 Constitution). Item 60 on the Exclusive Legislative List pertains and is limited to the formation, annulment and dissolution of marriages. It cannot be expanded to cover cases of succession to, distribution and administration of the estate of an intestate. Also, Item 67 of the list cannot be construed to include matters beyond those specifically mentioned in Item 60.
On whether intestate succession determined by place of burial of the deceased or by a life policy made inter vivos by the deceased – The Supreme Court stated that the succession to the property of a person who died intestate is not determined by the place of burial of the deceased or by a life policy made inter vivos by the deceased.

The Supreme Court held that the appeal fails and was therefore dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES: DUTIES, APPOINTMENT, LIABILITIES.


PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES


PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Personal representatives (executors and administrators) are persons who carry out the wishes of deceased persons. They are referred to as executors/executrix where the deceased person (testator/testatrix) dies leaving a Will (testate) and appointing them as such; or referred to as administrators/administratrix where the deceased person dies leaving a Will, or without a Will (intestate) without mentioning who will execute his (testator’s) wish, but are appointed through the process of the Court.
VARIOUS WAYS OF APPOINTING PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Personal representatives could be appointed through any of the following means –
1.      Express appointment of a personal representative – This occurs where the testator in a Will clearly identifies the person he desires to carry out his wishes. In doing this, he is to provide all the particulars like name, address, occupation of the person named in the Will. The appointment clause may be drafted as follows –
“I appoint Abi Soki, Embe, Female, businesswoman of No. 8 Nedu Drive, Bwari, Lagos, as executrix of this Will”.
The reason for this is that it has the advantage of reducing the likelihood of disputes and litigation, and lessens the difficulty in the grant of probate by officials of the registry since the person appointed, is clearly identified.
2.      Implied appointment of a personal representative – This is an appointment that is not expressly made in a Will but may be implied by the tenor of the Will. In the case of In The Goods of Cook (1902) 71 LJ 49, the testator stated that she desired one John Goodrick to pay all her just debts; it was held to be an implied appointment. Thus, in an implied appointment, it states that a person should carry out some tasks like collection of assets of the deceased, payments of debts, etc to fulfil the wish of the deceased person.
3.      Appointment through a nominee in a Will – This occurs where the deceased person does not directly name a person in the Will to carry out his/her wishes, rather nominates another person in the Will to appoint an executor after he is deceased.
4.      Appointment by the court – This occurs where the court exercises its power to appoint a person as personal representatives of a Will. For the courts to make such appointments, the following situations need to occur –
a)      Where the Will does not appoint a personal representative – Order 55 Rule 42 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos.
b)      Where the personal representative is outside jurisdiction.
c)      Where a personal representative or beneficiary applies to court for the appointment of a substituted personal representative.
d)     Where there is a pending suit (lis pendens) on the validity of the Will or for obtaining, recalling or revoking any grant; the court may appoint a general administrator to the estate – section 27(10 of Administration of Estate Law (AEL), Lagos.
e)      Where in a trust, there is a minority or life interest and no personal representative exist to deal with the trust, the court may appoint additional persons as personal representatives to deal with that person.
5.      Appointment by representation – This occurs where there is more than one executor. In the event of any of them dying, the others will carry on the duties of the office of the executor. But where the last one dies having taken probate, any executor of the deceased person’s Will, will be regarded as the executor of the first testator, so long as he obtains probate of the second testator’s Will. In such instances, the second executor cannot take the office of the first executor’s executor without also taking on the office of the original testator’s personal representative, and if he does not want to deal with either taking the office of the first executor’s executor and the office of the original testator’s personal representative, he must renounce both
6.      Executors de son tort (of his own wrong) Under this, such executors are not really appointed but are only persons who have intermeddled with the estate of the deceased person. Due to this, they are taken to be personal representatives of the estate of the deceased person – Order 55 Rule 3 of the High Court Rules Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos, 2004. The executor is de son tort because he has assumed the role of executor without any lawful warrant or authority, but who makes himself liable as executor to the degree of his action due to his intermeddling with the estate. In Re Odutola (2002) FWLR (Pt. 119) 1624 at 1632, the court held that if a person performs any act in relation to the property of a deceased person which indicates an intention in him to take upon himself the administration of the estate of the deceased person, such act is permissible and will be construed as an acceptance by the person of the office of executor or administrator, subject to the proviso that such act is not of nominal a character as to amount only to technical intermeddling. For example, where a person collected the assets and paid the debts of a deceased person. In Long & Feaver v. Symes & Hamman (1832) 3 Hag. Ecc. 771, where some persons inserted an advertisement calling on all persons who had any claim on the estate of the testator to send in their accounts and to pay all money due to the estate to the named persons as his “executors in trust”, it was held that they were executors of the estate. Also, in Adeniyi Jones v. Josephine Martins (1943) 9 WACA 100, where a person collected rent on the property of her deceased brother, the court held that she was liable to the plaintiff to pay for services that were rendered to the deceased brother, while he lived. It should, however, be noted that an executor de son tort (of his own wrong) is liable to make accounts for any assets he deals with.
In circumstances where there is a dispute between the executors or between executors and beneficiaries, or between beneficiaries and the properties under the estate are at some risk, the court may appoint administrator pendent lite (pending suit) to manage the properties pending the resolution of the dispute; and such appointed administrators are liable to account for the period of his administration. In Ladejobi v. Odutola Holdings Ltd. (2002) 1 WRN 94, it was held that such appointed administrator does not need to apply for a grant of letters of administration because the courts takes notice of the appointment. However, such appointed administrators are not to interfere with the estate of the deceased person while there is a pendete lite.
PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE APPOINTED AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
1.      Infants, though, they can be appointed as personal representatives, they will not be granted representation until they reached the full legal age.
2.      Mentally challenged persons will also not be granted representation because of incapacity.
3.      Native laws and customs also restrict persons who could be appointed as administrators of the estate of a deceased person who dies intestate. For example, a widow under the Yoruba ethnic group cannot be appointed as personal representative because she is regarded to inherit or benefit from the estate of her deceased husband. In Akinnubi v. Akinnubi (1997) 1 SCNJ 202, it was held that a widow is neither entitled to apply for a grant of letters of administration nor to be appointed as co-administrator for her husband’s estate. Such widow can however successfully sue to protect the estate as the next-of-friend to her infant children but not as a guardian ad litem.
PERSONS ENTITLED TO LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN INTESTACY
Section 26 of the Administration of Estates Law, Lagos provides that the court has the discretion to grant administration to persons having regards to the rights of all the parties interested in the estate as well as the materials placed before the court – Asere v. Asere (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 197) 316. In Williams v. Ogundipe (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 327) 540 at 552, per Ogunjobi JCA, it was stated that “The concept of interest in this respect is not mythical but legal and provided by the law”. This means that the law has set out persons who could be granted administration of the estate of deceased persons in intestacy.
Section 49(1) of the Administration of Estates Law (AEL), Lagos lays down some guidance on the order of priority of persons who could be granted letters of administration in intestacy –
1.      Husband or wife (spouse) of the deceased person.
2.      Children of the deceased person or the surviving issue of a child who died in the lifetime of the deceased person.
3.      Father or mother (parents) of the deceased person.
4.      Brothers or sisters of the deceased of full blood and the children of such brothers or sisters who died in the lifetime of the deceased person.
5.      Brothers or sisters of half blood of the deceased person or the children of any such half brother or sister who died in the lifetime of the deceased person.
6.      Grandfather or grandmother of the deceased person.
7.      Uncles and aunts of full blood of the deceased person or their children.
8.      Creditors of the deceased person.
9.      Administrator General (where all the preceding persons fail) – Kekereogun v. Oshodi (1971) ANLR 95.
The Court of Appeal in interpreting section 49(1) of the AEL, Lagos held in Williams v. Ogundipe (supra) at 552 & 555, that “from the above deductive conclusion, it is clear that  the surviving spouse and children of a deceased person take priority and exclusive right to the estate of the deceased”, and in a situation where the solicitor to the widow of the deceased person applied as co-administrator along with the widow, he was held to be “... nothing more than a busy body trying to reap where he has not sown.”
Where a person married under the Marriage Act dies intestate, the estate of the deceased person will be distributed according to the provisions of the Administration of Estate Law and not the custom of the deceased person – Obusez v. Obusez (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 374) 227; (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 430.
NUMBERS OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES THAT CAN BE APPOINTED
There is no statutory limitation or restriction as to the number of personal representatives. In practice, it is a minimum of two and maximum of four. Thus, probate will not be granted to more than four persons – section 24(1) of Administration of Estates Law (AEL), 2004.
It is advisable to have a minimum of two in case any of the two persons appointed predeceases the deceased person. However, where more than four persons are appointed, only the first four will be recognised to act as personal representatives while the remaining, if any, will wait till there is a vacancy due to death, renunciation, sickness, etc. to fill any vacant part.
There are several advantages in appointing not less than two personal representatives –
1.      Sole executor may die before the testator and the testator may have to make a codicil to appoint another one. Where there is more than one executor, the others will continue to act even if one of them dies.
2.      More executors to a Will aid in “division of labour” and the sharing of responsibilities among the executors, for example, while one executor can be in charge of funeral expenses, another can be in charge of collection of assets of the deceased person, etc.
3.      Where there is more than one executor, it will facilitate the effective administration of the estate because where other executors are busy or unavailable; the others will act on behalf of the estate.
However, the major disadvantage of appointing more than one personal representative is that it amounts to conflicts among them. In Ibrahim v. Ojomo (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 199) 1285 at 1308, two out of the three administrators signed the deed of lease of the property to the defendant. The third administrator did not consent to the transaction. The Supreme Court set aside the transaction and stated thus –
“... since the right and interest of the administrators or administratrixes of any estate is joint in the estate, 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”.
QUALITIES OF PERSONS TO BE APPOINTED AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
1.      Willingness and availability of the person – Personal representatives must be persons who are willing and available to administer the estate. Where they are very busy or unavailable to devote time to the estate of the deceased.
2.      Capability to manage the estate – Personal representatives should be persons of integrity in order to honestly discharge the duties of personal representatives. They should not have any tendency to make unjust gains from the estate.
3.      Persons who has no conflict of interest with the estate of the deceased – Personal representatives should not have any conflict of interest with the estate of the deceased person because any conflict of interest will blur the personal representatives from discharging the functions of his office.
4.      Should be younger than the deceased person – Personal representatives should be younger and in good health, though, there is no rule that prevents older persons from being appointed. The reason is that younger persons have the presumption of not predeceasing the deceased person due to their good health.
5.      Knowledgeable – Personal representatives should have some level of literacy, at least being able to read and write.
6.      Credibility and honesty – Personal representatives should be easy to believe. Thus, inspiring trust and confidence.
7.      Persons that can work in harmony with each other – Personal representatives should be able to work in harmony with each other without conflict among them.
8.      Knowledge of the business of the testator – Where the deceased was involved in some specialised business, the personal representatives should have knowledge of the business the testator was involved in.
9.      Logistics and convenience – Personal representatives should be persons who do not reside outside the country or in a far distant part of the country where the majority of assets of the testator are.
ENTITLEMENT OF REMUNERATION OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
The general rule is that personal representatives are not entitled to remuneration because their services are gratuitous – Re Orwell.
There are however some exceptions to the general rule. They are –
1.      Where the court makes an order – Where an executor to a Will applies to court for remuneration, the court may use its discretion to compensate the executor, but the court will firstly consider factors like the difficulty of the task performed or being performed, and whether the estate of the deceased person can bear the cost of remuneration. Order 55 Rule 43 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos provides thus –
“The judge may direct that any administrator (with or without the Will annexed) shall receive out of the personal and real estate of the deceased such reasonable remuneration as he shall deem fit not exceeding ten percent (10%) on the amount of the realised property, or when not converted into money, on the value of the property duly administered and accounted for by him”.
2.      Under the rule in Craddle v. Piper (1850) Ch. 107; 41 ER 1422 – The rule in Craddle v. Piper states that a solicitor-trustee or his firm is entitled to profit costs for work done in connection with litigation on behalf of the personal representatives jointly, as long as the costs have been increased by his being one of the parties. It should be noted that the rule applies only to executors/trustees who are law professionals and not to other professionals who are trustees of the Will.
3.      Where there is a charging clause in the Will – A charging clause in a Will is a declaration by the testator allowing or permitting his executors to charge and be entitled to their usual professional fees rendered by such professional in the administration of the estate of the testator.
There is no statutory format for a charging clause. An example is –
“I authorise that any of my trustees who is a solicitor or other persons engaged in any profession or business shall be entitled to charge and be paid all professional or other charges for business done, services rendered or time spent by him or his firm in the administration of my estate or this trusts, including acts which a trustee not engaged in any profession or business could have done personally.”
However, where there is a charging clause, the executors should not be witnesses in the Will as they will lose any gift including professional fees that they are entitled to under the Will – section 8 of Wills Law, Lagos; section 15 of Wills Act; In Re Pooley (1889) Chd. 1.
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES WITHDRAWING OR RENOUNCING REPRESENTATION
Renunciation of representation is the express refusal by a person to take up probate or grant of letters of administration.
An executor can renounce his appointment as executor, which must be a positive act and not a passive act. Thus, any person appointed as a personal representative is at liberty to refuse it. Renunciation has to be expressly signified in writing to the Probate Registrar, and might therefore be required to file form for renunciation or file an affidavit disclosing his renunciation; and the fact that an executor does nothing is not evidence of renunciation, renunciation must be complete and not partial. Therefore, he must renounce administration of the whole estate – Paul v. Moodie 81 ER P. 706.
Also, renunciation by an executor can be withdrawn at any time – Order 55 Rule 67(3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos. He can do this with the permission of the Probate Registrar. He must however, adduce exceptional circumstance for the leave or permission for withdrawal to be given – proviso to Order 55 Rule 67(3) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos.
However, whatever thing that is done by other person upon the grant of administration with the Will attached before the withdrawal of the renunciation by the executor remains valid.
There are circumstances in which a personal representative cannot renounce representation. These are –
1.      Where a person renounces representation, he can only gain back his office with the leave and permission of the court and only where this would be for the benefit of the estate and of persons interested in the estate. The fact that a person was wrongly advised to renounce probate does not entitle him to retract his renunciation – In the Goods of Gill (1873) LR. 3, P & D. 113.
2.      Where an executor fails to accept or renounce probate, the court may issue what is referred to as ‘Citation’ calling on the person to formally accept or renounce probate. Order 55 Rule 7 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Lagos, provides that the court may of its own or on the application of any person claiming an interest under a Will, give notice to the executors therein named, to come in and prove the Will, or to renounce probate, and they, or some or one of them, shall within twenty (21) days after notice, come in and prove or renounce accordingly.
DUTIES OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Personal representatives have enormous duties and responsibilities in respect of the estate of the testator which they administer.  They therefore owe the following duties –
1.      To prove the Will by applying to the probate registry – A will can be proved in common form (if it is not contested or challenged), or in solemn form (if it is challenged).  Personal representatives have the duty to ensure the general nature of the Will is effected by applying for probate at the probate registry, and proving the Will especially if it is contested by any person.  The testator can be and is usually cited to obtain or refuse probate.  Where he intermeddles with the estate without taking out probate, he can be compelled to take probate. If any named executor in the Will of the deceased person takes possession and administers or otherwise deals with any part of the property of the deceased, and does not apply for probate within three (3) months after the death, or after the termination of any suit or dispute respecting probate or administration, he may, independently of any other liability, be deemed to be in contempt of the court, and shall be liable to such fine not less than fifty thousand naira (N50,000), as the judge may deem fit to impose – Order 55 Rule 8, Lagos.
In instances where there is more than one executor, all the executors have the right to apply for probate.  Thus, probate cannot be granted to some of the executors to the exclusion of others, otherwise the probate so granted may be revoked unless any of them had previously renounced probateAdesoga v. Probate Registrar (2000) LHCR 7.
2.      To ensure the testator is given decent burial – Personal representatives have the duty to ensure the testator is given a befitting burial.  In some cases, the testator may have left instructions on how he would like his burial to be conducted, which may not and should not be contained in the will.
3.      To collect and gather properties in the estate, and exhibit on oath – Personal representatives have a duty to ascertain the nature and value of the estate, to gather all the items of property constituting the estate wherever they are for the purpose of settling any liabilities against the estate and also for the sharing to persons who are entitled under the Will or incidences of intestacy – Admin-General & Public Trustee v. Ilobi (1972) ECSLR 587.  When the Probate Registrar is an executor, he needs not wait for the grant of probate to take steps to preserve the estate. In Ogbe & Ors v. Ogbe (unreported) Suit No: 8/3/1969 High Court of the Midwest, Benin Judicial Division per Irikefe J, the executors of the will of the deceased, took out a writ seeking an order of injunction to restrain the widow of the deceased from further meddling with the estate.  The contention of the widow that the executors had no locus to bring the action until they were granted probate was rejected by the court.
It should be noted that a personal representative will only be liable for loss resulting from his failure to act if he has acted unreasonably.
4.      To pay out all liabilities and debts of the testator – Personal representatives have the foremost duty of payment of the debts and liabilities of the deceased person. All debts and liabilities of the testator and those arising from the estate would be paid out of the estate, including capital transfer tax. Thus, the real and personal properties of a deceased person are primarily meant for the payment of the deceased person’s debt – section 36(1) of Administration of Estates Law, Lagos. Personal representatives must exercise due diligence in the payment of debts owed to all creditors and entitlements of all beneficiaries; else, they would be personally liable for any loss suffered by a creditor or beneficiary as a result of their indolence. The personal representatives must also pay for funeral expenses, testamentary and administration expenses.  These are essentially –
a)      Cost of obtaining a grant of probate or letters of administration;
b)      Cost of gathering assets in the estate of the deceased person; and
c)      Administration expenses, such as solicitor’s fees, fees for valuers and other professional fees made for and on behalf of the estate.
5.      To ascertain beneficiaries entitled to the estate and Distribute the Assets – Personal representatives have a duty to ascertain the beneficiaries that are entitled under the Will and distribute the estate in accordance with the wishes of the testator as expressed in his Will or under the rules of intestacy.  Where they fail to conduct adequate search, they might be liable to a beneficiary that suffers loss as a result of their negligence. Where the administrator is granted Letters of Administration over personalty, whether or not it includes realty depends on the provision of the applicable Administration of Estate Law – Shobogun v. Sanni (1974) All NLR 816; Ugu v. Tabi (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt 513) 368.
The mode of payment of debts and liabilities depends on whether the estate is solvent or insolvent.
Where the estate is solvent – Part II of the Schedule to Administration of Estates Law, Lagos, the order of application of assets shall be –
a)      Property of the deceased person that has not been disposed by Will, subject to retention of funds sufficient to meet pecuniary legacies.
b)      Property of the deceased person not specifically devised or bequeathed in residuary gift subject to retention of funds sufficient to meet pecuniary legacies.
c)      Property of the deceased person specifically devised, charged or bequeathed for the payment of debts.
d)     Properties specifically devised or bequeathed that are rateable according to value.
e)      Funds retained to meet pecuniary legacies.
f)       Property appointed by Will under a general power rateable according to value.
Where the estate is insolvent – Part I of the Schedule to Administration of Estates Law, Lagos, the order for distribution shall be –
a)      Funeral, testamentary and administration expenses.
b)      All local rates and taxes due from the deceased at the time of his death.
c)      All wages and salary of any clerk or servant in respect of services rendered to the deceased during four (4) months before the period of death.
d)     Wages of labourer or workman.
e)      Amounts in respect of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
6.      Duty of Care – Personal representatives have the duty of reasonable care in the management of the estate.  He must not waste the estate’s assets.  Where he does such, he and his personal estate would continue to be liable to the estate of the deceased, even after his deathsection 19 of the Administration of Estates Law, Lagos.
7.      Duty to Act in Good faith – Arising from the fact that they are in a fiduciary relationship with the estate of the deceased, personal representatives have a duty to act in good faith in their administration of the estate of the deceased.  They must not convert the assets in the estate for their own use; otherwise they would be liable for such conversion.
8.      Account and Inventory – Personal representatives have a duty to maintain proper account and records of the estate.  He should also maintain an inventory. He might be required to exhibit on oath in the court a true and perfect inventory and account of the real and personal estate of the deceased section 14 of the Administration of Estate Law, Lagos. Personal representatives must therefore keep the account of the estate and also of their dealings with the estate. The account shall be open for inspection by persons interested in the estate.
9.      To Issue Assent – Both real and personal assets comprised in the estate of the deceased are vested in the personal representatives.  Title to assets in the estate, especially in the case of realty would only pass where the executor grants assent to the beneficiaries thereofsection 3 of the Administration of Estate Law, Lagos.
Once an assent is issued, the executor is divested of the legal estate in such property – Wise v. Whitburn (1924) 1 Ch 460; Cappa Ltd v. Pereira (1966) 1 All NLR 57.  The assent vests the legal estate in the beneficiary.  For an assent to be valid, it must be in writing, signed by all the executors that prove the Will, and must contain the names of the beneficiary – Renner v. Renner (1961) All NLR 233. The personal representatives cannot refuse to execute an assent without a good cause. They are liable to be compelled to give the assent – Martin v. Wilson (1913) 1 IRR 470. However, in Unoka v. Agili (2007) NWLR (Pt. 1044) 122 where it was held that a beneficiary has no right to sue for the protection of the assets in the estate of a testator; that the real estate or chattels-real vest in the executors who are the representative of the testator and heir at law to the estate of the testator.
LIABILITIES OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
The liabilities of a personal representative are –
1.      Liability for Waste and Conversion – Where an administrator converts to his use or waste assets in the estate, he and his estate shall be liable and even if he dies, his estate shall continue to be liable. Where a personal representative commits a breach of any of their duties, which results in a loss to a creditor or beneficiary, he is said to have committed devastavit (wasting of the assets in the estate of the deceased person). Where there are multiple grantees, each is responsible for his actions. A personal representative may be liable for the actions of another representative in the following instances:
a)      He acquiesced in the breach by another personal representative; or
b)      The breach arose from a breach of the duty of the personal representative.
2.      Liability to Creditors or Beneficiaries – Where personal representatives wrongfully distribute the assets as a result of negligence or not being aware of the existence or whereabouts of a beneficiary or creditor, they may incur personal liability in favour of that beneficiary or creditor.
3.      Where he intermeddles with the estate without taking out probateWhere he intermeddles with the estate without taking out probate, he can be compelled to take probate. If any named executor in the Will of the deceased person takes possession and administers or otherwise deals with any part of the property of the deceased, and does not apply for probate within three (3) months after the death, or after the termination of any suit or dispute respecting probate or administration, he may, independently of any other liability, be deemed to be in contempt of the court, and shall be liable to such fine not less than fifty thousand naira (N50,000), as the judge may deem fit to impose – Order 55 Rule 8, Lagos.
4.      To pay inheritance and other estate taxes – Personal representatives are liable to pay inheritance and other estate taxes that may be imposed on the estate he is administering. Thus, he cannot postpone payment of the taxes since this is part of the liabilities of the estate.
5.      Liability for co-representation – The estate of the deceased person is not divisible but joint in the sense that they agree in their actions. Therefore, one representative cannot claim that he will administer one part while the other representative will administer the other parts and none of them can release his interest to the other – Ibrahim v. Ojomo (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 199) 1285.
6.      Liability as executor de son tort – Where a person, without authority, intermeddles with the estate of a deceased person, he does that with grave consequences, and will therefore be liable to the extent of what he received from or realised out of the estate. He will also bear any of the following liabilities –
a)      Liability for any loss suffered by the estate;
b)      Liability to pay for services rendered to the estate during the period of intermeddling or in the lifetime of the deceased;
c)      Liability to creditors.
d)     Liability for personal expenses.
e)      Liability to pay fine.
f)       Liability for Inheritance Tax.
g)      Liability for citation.
ACCOUNTS TO BE MAINTAINED AND FILED BY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES

The law requires every executor or administrator to maintain the account of the estate of the deceased and to file in Court an account of his administration every twelve (12) months from the date of the grant or the appointment until the completion of the administration – Order 55 Rule 46(1) Lagos; section 14 of the Administration of Estate Law, Lagos; Cooper v. Skinner (1904) 1 Ch 189; Sawyer v. Goddard (1895) 1 Ch 574. Any such Executor or Administrator who fails within the prescribed period to file his accounts shall be liable to a penalty of N100.00 (One hundred naira) for every day of default. Non-payment shall be enforceable by distress, and failing sufficient distress, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months – Order 55 Rule 46(1) Lagos. Thus, every personal representative must keep accurate accounts and be ready to render such accounts whenever called upon to do so or as prescribed by law – Thompson v. Dunn (1870) 5 Ch App 573; Sawyer v. Goddard (supra).
The accounts shall include –
1.      an inventory of all assets in the estate;
2.      an account of all monies received on behalf of the estate, purchases made, out of pocket expenses, and other necessary account of the administration;
3.      the vouchers in the hands of the Executor or Administrator relating to the administration of the estate; and
4.      an affidavit in verification – Order 55 Rule 46(9) Lagos.
The accounts shall be opened for the inspection of any person interested in the administration – Order 55 Rule 46(8), Lagos.

EFFECT OF EITHER FAILING TO FILE THE ACCOUNT OR FILING INACCURATE ACCOUNTS
Accounts which are not backed up with those requirements (e.g. audited accounts showing only figures) may not be accepted by the Court.
When an account is filed in Court, the Court shall scrutinize such account and if it appears that by reason of improper, unvouched or unjustifiable entries or otherwise such account is not a full and proper account, the Court shall require the person filing the account to remedy such defects as there may be within such time as the Court may deem reasonable for the purpose, and on failure to remedy such defects within such time, the person who filed such defective account shall be deemed to have failed to file an account within the meaning of the rule and proceedings may be taken against such person accordingly – Order 55 Rule 46(3) Lagos. It shall be the duty of the Registrar to bring to the notice of the Court the fact that any personal representative has failed to file his accounts as required by the Rules– Order 55 Rule 46(4) Lagos. The Court may on the motion of any party interested, or suo motu, summon any personal representative who fails to file the accounts within the prescribed time or in the proper manner, to show cause why he should not be punished. However, the Court may extend the time for filing such accounts – Order 55 Rule 46(5) and (6) Lagos. Any personal representative who has been granted an extension of time to file such accounts, and who fails to file the accounts within such extended time, shall be liable to the penalty – Order 55 Rule 46(7) Lagos.

Precautionary Measures – Some well established basic precautionary measures that may ease compilation of acceptable accounts and forestall future embarrassments are as follows:
1.      Keep proper accounts in a form that will be self-explanatory and ensure accuracy and clarity such that at any given time it is able to offer correct information as to the true position of the estate under administration;
2.      Operate a separate Bank Account in the name of the estate and refrain from lodging estate money into personal account;
3.      Make payments out of the estate account preferably by cheque;
4.      Obtain duly stamped receipts, school and hospital bills, vouchers and invoices etc, submitted preliminary to payments and the stubs of cheques issued in support of expenditure made; it should be noted that an under-aged or a mentally incapable person cannot give a valid receipt for his own share of the estate. Payment should be made to his Guardian for his use and benefit until he attains majority (18 years) or regains mental capacity.
5.      Keep and preserve all counterfoils of receipts issued for all incomes (and materials) into the estate or and all related documents.

When Accounts are desirable – Accounts may be called for by the Registrar in the following circumstances –
1.      Where a complaint of maladministration is lodged in the Registry against an Executor or Administrator.
2.      Where an application is made to the Court for removal/discharge of an Executor or Administrator before administration of an estate is completed.
3.      Where any Executor or Administrator who has been issued a grant himself applied to the Court with a view to surrendering the estate vested in him to the Administrator-General pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Administration of Estate Law, Lagos.
4.      Where, on completion of administration of an estate, Executors or Administrators thereof apply to the Court to be discharged.

DISCHARGE FROM LIABILITIES

Personal representatives may be discharged from liability for administering the estate of the deceased. Where the Probate Registrar files the final accounts upon the completion of the administration of the estate, and the court is satisfied as to the contents of the accounts, the Probate Registrar would be discharged from the administration bonds entered at the time of application for grant.
Generally, the Probate Registrar, the bondman or guarantor remains liable until the due administration of the estate.  If there is any failure on the part of the Probate Registrar to pay appropriate fees, or file appropriate accounts, the bondman or guarantor may be made liable to forfeit the bond or pay for the inaction of the Probate Registrar – Chief Registrar v. Somefun, where the Probate Registrar failed to pay additional court fees in respect of money received as proceeds of sale of real property of the estate by the Probate Registrar, the court ordered the fees to be paid by the bonds man.
Where the bondsman or guarantor forfeits any bond or pays anything as a result of the action or inaction of the Probate Registrar, they are entitled to indemnity from the Probate Registrar.
Where the estate has been duly administered by the Probate Registrar, the liability of the Probate Registrar or the bonds man ceases; they are accordingly exempted from liability for any loss that may arise subsequently. However, it should be noted that a personal representative can only be discharged from the administration bond by the court at the completion of the administration. That is, after the satisfaction of all legitimate claims on the estate, and the distribution of the residue of the estate, the Probate Registrar must file in court an account of how the administration was conducted.
This discharge may be as a result of –
1.      The Express Provision in the Will – The testator may have provided that the executors would be protected from liability for all acts except that of dishonesty. Therefore, where the loss suffered by the creditor or beneficiary is not as a result of dishonesty or fraud on the part of the executor, the executor would be free of any liability.
2.      Relief obtained from the Beneficiary or Creditors affected – The affected beneficiary or creditor may release the executor from the breach only if he, the affected beneficiary or creditor, is aware of the breach and is of a full age and capacity to make such decision.
3.      Relief from the Court – Where the executor acted honestly and reasonably, and ought fairly to be excused from the breach, the court may relieve him of the liability. To be entitled to court’s relief, he must show that he acted honesty and reasonably, and not negligently.
4.      Plea of Limitation – Just like every cause of action that is subject to statute of limitation, personal representatives can rely on the general plea of limitation, that is, that the cause of action has become statute-barred. Claim by a creditor, for instance, becomes statute-barred if made after six (6) years; but that of a beneficiary can only be statute-barred after twelve (12) years. However, where the personal representatives fraudulently commit the breach or are guilty of converting the assets in the estate into their personal use, statute of limitation will not apply. This period of limitation may be extended for the creditor or beneficiary where it was either concealed by the personal representative or where owing to the disability or other incapacity of the beneficiary or creditor, action could not be initiated on time, or on any other reasonable and justifiable ground.
WINDING-UP OF THE ESTATES
Winding-up of estates of a deceased takes place upon a conclusive administration of the estate under the terms of the probate or the letters of administration. Winding-up is an indication that the estate is fully administered. A major responsibility of a personal representative is to prepare and file final accounts on the administered estate, as this is one instance in which a personal representative is expected to file account.
ETHICAL ISSUES
1.      A solicitor drafting a Will or advising the estate of a deceased person should ensure that persons who take up representation should meet the required qualities personal representatives.
2.      A solicitor who has no interest in the estate should not impose himself in the office of a personal representative.
3.      Where a solicitor is appointed as an executor, he should faithfully administer the estate according to the general nature of the Will, and should refrain from doing anything that will be contrary to the interest of the estate.
4.      Where a solicitor is an executor, he should not instigate, encourage or participate in the appointment of his firm as solicitors to the estate – Rule 47(1) of the RPC.
5.      A solicitor should refrain from charging for remuneration where the Will does not expressly provide for that.