Judge’s daughter in court, seeks enforcement of late father’s will

Ann Eniyamire, the daughter of former Abuja Customary Court of Appeal President, Justice Moses Bello, on Wednesday, requested a high court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Bwari to declare that she is entitled to 11.11 per cent of all her late father’s property, including estates.

She said her request is hinged on her late father’s will.

In the suit marked: CV/667/2024, Eniyamire sued Reverend Father Ezekiel Awolumate and Christ the King Catholic Church Okene Parish.

Her lawyer contended that his client was short-changed by the executor of the will, Reverend Father Ezekiel John (1st defendant) and another.

The claimant, in the affidavit attached to the motion, deposed that her late father instructed that all his assets be shared between his wife and the children following an 11.11 per cent sharing formula.

She, therefore, accused the defendants of adopting a sharing formula of 4.16 per cent.

Eniyamire, who has 38 reliefs, urged the court to reverse the alleged decision of the defendants, relieve them of their duties (as executors of her father’s will) and restore 11.11 per cent of her father’s property to her.

She also sought a declaration that the claimant is entitled to a share of 1/9 or 11.11 per cent of all her late father’s assets of shares and stocks.

She equally sought an order directing the defendants to account, tender and hand over all necessary documents with regards to administration, management and distribution of the estates of the claimant’s late father to any appointed administrator general, among others.

When the matter was called on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, Mahruz told the judge that hearing on his case was ripe.

But the defendants’ counsel, Adewale Adegboyega, told the judge that he had filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the suit.

Justice Madugu, who said it was not convenient to take the matter on Wednesday, consolidated the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection and the claimant’s motions so that they could be taken together in the next adjourned date.

He then adjourned the matter until June 4 for definite hearing.