A Lagos State High Court sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square, has ordered parties in the suit challenging the will of late naturalised Nigerian from Venlo, Netherlands, Jacobus Roomans, to maintain status quo ante bellum.
Trial judge, Justice Oyebanji, made the order after hearing argument and counter-argument for an injunction in the matter, reports Vanguard.
The judge held that she would hear the substantive matter and ordered accelerated hearing, relying on Order 42, Rule 2 of the 2019 Rules of the court.
Claimants in the matter are children of late Jacobus Roomans, Simon Roomans, Kyle Roomans and Daniel Roomans, suing as next-of-kin of Jacobus Roomans, entitled in the event of intestacy.
Defendants in the matter are Mr. Luke Ilogu, SAN, Mr. Stanley Onuosa (sued as executors appointed by the purported Will, dated July 5, 2022) and the Probate Registrar, High Court of Lagos.
The claimants had through their counsel, Dr. Babajide Ajibade, SAN, prayed the court to among others, appoint Mr. Babajide Ogundipe, as Administrator Pendente Lite, to administer the Estate of the late Jacobus Roomans, pending the final determination of the suit.
They had also prayed the court for an order of interlocutory injunction, restraining the 1st – 4th defendants and their agents, servants, or privies, from withdrawing money from any of the bank accounts of the late Jacobus Roomans.
• An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st – 4th defendants from administering , disposing of, distributing, selling, or mortgaging any assets that belong to the Estate of the late Jacobus Roomans, including those referred to in Schedule A of Exhibit SOR1 herein, pending the final determination of this suit.
• An order appointing Mr. Babajide Ogundipe, as Administrator Pendente Lite, to administer the Estate of the late Jacobus Roomans, pending the final determination of this suit.
Simon Roomans, in an affidavit in support of the suit, stated, “The claimants have challenged the validity of the purported Will, dated July 5, 2022, on the grounds, amongst others, that my late father had been suffering from mental incapacity since in or about 2010, and did not have testamentary capacity to have made the purported Will dated July 5, 2022.
“We have also challenged the validity of the purported Will on the ground that the 3rd defendant, Ms. Maria Mahat, took advantage of my late father’s mental infirmity to exercise undue influence over him, resulting in the making of the purported Will in which my late father is alleged to have left his entire estate to her and her son, the 4th defendant.
“In challenging the validity of the purported Will, we have sought a declaration that my late father died inestate.”
Simon Roomans had added, “The claimants/applicants on March 5, 2024, filed a notice to Prohibit Grant of Probate, and a Caveat against the grant of probate of the purported Will of the late Jacobus Roomans, dated July 5, 2022.
“In response, the 1st and 2nd defendants/respondents on March 15, 2024, filed a warning to the caveator, after which the claimants filed an appearance to warning dated March 21, 2024, culminating in the commencement of this suit.
“No grant of probate has been made in respect of the deceased’s estate. There is a need to grant orders of interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st to 4th defendants from intermeddling with the Estate of the late Jacobus Roomans, pending the determination of this suit,” he added.
But the defendants opposed the granting of the interlocutory injunctions.
The judge, in a short ruling, ordered parties to maintain status quo ante bellum. The court further directed the defendants to file their defence and adjourned the matter.
