The recent case of Ashimola and Anor v Samuel and Anor [2025] EWHC 502 (Ch) is certainly a one-of-a-kind probate case because the person who was claimed to be dead was very much alive. On top of this, many documents were found to be fraudulent and the way the trial was conducted was chaotic.
Ashimola and Anor v Samuel and Anor [2025] EWHC 502 (Ch)
Background
The Claimant brought an action to set aside the Letters of Administration of her own estate issued in 2022 claiming that she was very much alive, which was contrary to the claim made by the Defendants that she died intestate in Nigeria in 2019. The 1st Defendant held a probate power of attorney for the 2nd Defendant, who claimed to be the Claimant’s husband.
Decision
The Court started its judgment by stating that ‘[t]his is an unusual probate claim…’ and found that:-
- The Claimant was alive and she did not die intestate;
- The death certificate was fraudulent;
- The marriage certificate between the 2nd Defendant and the Claimant was fraudulent; and
- The power of attorney allegedly executed by the Claimant in favour of the 2nd Defendant was likely to be fraudulent.
The Court therefore exercised its power under section 121 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to revoke the Letters of Administration and the probate power of attorney.
Comments
The Court criticised the way the trial was conducted by stating that:-
‘I appreciate that preparation for and conduct of a trial especially in situations as obtain here is rarely easy or straightforward… I usually endeavour, on the basis that the legal teams and litigants in person are doing their very best, not to take points of procedure, preparation or practice unless there is material prejudice or it affects my consideration of the evidence, the weight I should attach to it and my judgment. But what happened here was substantially beyond the norm and needs to be set out as the background to my assessment of the evidence and determination of the issues.’
The 2nd Defendant did not attend a trial or give oral evidence and his witness statement was poorly drafted – it:-
- Had no personal details;
- Did not address the Claimant as his wife; and
- Lacked substantiation/explanation as to his statements, such as his relationship with the Claimant and the alleged death of the Claimant.
The Court therefore had no regard to his evidence and drew adverse inferences.
Also, the Court criticised the proportionality of this case:-
‘I have mentioned proportionality or rather lack of it. The equity in the Property according to the HMRC Schedule IHT421 filed by Ms Samuel is about £172,000 but that is subject to at least one charge besides the mortgage the value of which is not known… Both parties … costs total approximately £151,000 and so almost equal the remaining equity and may by now exceed it, so are disproportionate.’
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us