Nigeria Content Online

A Federal
High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Monday, referred the suit instituted by
Mohammed Fawehinmi, eldest son of the late human rights activist, Gani
Fawehinmi, against First Trustees Nigeria Limited to an Arbitration Panel for
resolution.

The junior Fawehinmi had instituted
the suit against First Trustees, which is a subsidiary of First Bank, over the
alleged failure of the firm to recognise him as the executive chairman of one
of the deceased’s companies, the Nigerian Law Publications Limited. First
Trustees was appointed by the deceased as the executor and trustee over his
estate during his life time.

Mr Fawehinmi also challenged the
defendants’ decision to freeze accounts belonging to three of his late father’s
companies without appropriate notification. The companies are the Nigerian Law
Publications Limited, Book Industries Nigeria Limited, and the Gani Fawehinmi
Chambers.

But First Trustees had through its
lawyer, Adebowale Kamoru, urged the court to stay further proceedings in the
matter because Mohammed’s major grouse had been adequately taken care of by the
will left by the deceased. Mr Kamoru had cited Clause 44 (a) (b) and (c) of the
will to buttress his point, stressing that the deceased made provision for
arbitration as regards any dispute arising from the implementation and
interpretation of the will.

In his ruling on Monday, the
presiding judge, J. T Tsoho, upheld the defendant’s contention and ruled that
the matter should be referred to an Arbitration Panel for resolution. The
judge, who cited Clause 44 (d) of the will in his ruling, noted that the
provision of the clause was key to the resolution of the dispute. The clause
states: “I plead with all my children and wives not to resort to litigation in
the interpretation and Implementation of this Will. They should resolve
amicably all dispute that may arise thereof.”

The court added that the deceased
had given all his shares in the Nigerian Law Publications Limited to First
Trustees in paragraph 21 (E) of the clause.

Addressing the issue

Mr Fawehinmi has vowed to institute
an appeal against the ruling. Speaking with journalists, he noted that he was
not satisfied with the ruling because his suit was not a challenge to his late
father’s will; but against the decision of First Trustees not to recognise him
as the chairman of the company and the freezing of the accounts without
appropriate notification.

He had averred in a supporting
affidavit to his originating summons that his father stepped down for him as
the chairman of the company at a board meeting of the company held on August
25, 2009.

He further averred that although
the company’s Managing Director, Mojeed Ajao, witnessed the event, having been
party to the meeting; his father also informed one of his sisters, Rabiat,
about the development.

The plaintiff accused the managing
director of frustrating the finalisation of his appointment by denying his late
father the opportunity of signing the necessary documents. He, therefore,
prayed the court to among others, make an order of perpetual injunction,
restraining the defendant or its agents from overriding the decision and
resolution of the company’s board held on August 25, 2009 where he was
appointed the chairman.

The plaintiff also sought an order
compelling the defendant to recognise him in that capacity as the company’s
chairman in view of duties he had performed since the demise of his father and
upon the advice given the defendant on how the deceased wanted his legacy
preserved. He had further prayed the court to declare that since he was duly appointed
to chair the company’s board, there is no longer a vacancy which the defendant
purportedly seeks to fill.