By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka
Mr Ronald Lanier, an American and claimant in suit marked ID5526GCM/2022 in the matter of Estate of Janet Abimbola Dada before a Lagos High Court, Ikeja, had through his counsel Olawole Araromi and John Alade of LEXX & SOPHY moved and argued his application seeking the special leave of the court permitting his non-physical attendance in court to testify to the authenticity of his identity; the special leave of the court permitting and using his affidavit and counter affidavits regarding the authenticity of his identity as his evidence in respect of same; and for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this application.
While moving the motion before Justice Latifat Folami, Mr Araromi stated that the application dated October 8, 2024, was supported with 11-paragraphs affidavit dated same day and with a written address. He submitted that two exhibits RLL1 which is the affidavit of facts deposed by the claimant in the United States of America (USA) and RLL2 were attached to the application.
In the affidavit of facts deposed by the claimant Ronald Lee Lanier who leaves in Connecticut, USA, he averred that he instructed his Nigerian Attorney Olawole Araromi to institute the Nigerian suit to protect and preserve the estate of his late niece Dr (Miss) Janet Abimbola Dada , a dual American /Nigerian citizen who was born, lived in and had her higher education in the United States of America before she later relocated to Nigeria.
Ronald Lanier stated that he is the claimant in the Nigerian suit and by virtue of his position, he is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
The claimant averred that the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the Nigerian suit contested the authenticity of his identity together with the appointment of Mr Olawole Araromi as his counsel in Nigerian suit and the judge eventually ordered physical appearance of the claimant before the court in Nigeria to testify to the authenticity of “my identity.”
The claimant averred that it will be dangerous, unsafe, reckless, negligent, unadvisable and unwise for him to travel to Nigeria physically to testify to the authenticity of his identity due to some many reasons, including but not limited to:
“That the United States government has advised American citizens against travelling to Nigeria due to terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, armed robbery, general violent and deadly crime , and lots of which are targeted against foreigners. The US government stated categorically that they may not be able to come to the rescue of any American citizen who travels to Nigeria and falls victim of any of the said crimes.
“That the 1st defendant /respondent harbours sinister intentions towards my family and me and has exhibited and continues to exhibit animosity towards me and wishes me dead.
“That the 1st defendant /respondent has already made false accusations against me and has unlawfully instigated some Police officers to purportedly conduct an investigation against me and to issue a questionable report to indict me of a crime of forgery and to recommend my arrest.
“That the police officers conducted a sham investigation and indicted me of the crime of forgery without contacting me, hearing from me and without my knowledge whatsoever.
“That the said police officers, who had never been to the Nigerian Court to observe any proceedings in the Nigerian suit before, suddenly and curiously showed up in the Nigerian Court on 2nd July 2024 when I was expected to appear there physically.
“That the said appearance of the said police officers was neither a mere coincidence nor was it in performance of their lawful duty; “
“That there is a history of security agents in Nigeria arresting persons within court premises even in blatant contravention of valid court orders forbidding such arrests.
“That I am 76 years old and my wife who is 74 years old has undergone several medical procedures in recent years. As a result, I do not leave her alone when I travel and we would therefore need to travel to Nigeria together. Given our old age, the long journey from the United States to Nigeria would pose severe hardship, strain and significant danger to our health and lives.
“That it will be very difficult, inconvenient and will occasion great and irredeemably hardship and consequences on me, my wife and some other members of our family for me to travel to Nigeria physically to testify to the authenticity of my identity.
“That a 16 to 18-hour one way flight and a 32 to 36 hour round trip flight to and from Nigeria just within a few days would definitely be too strenuous, taxing, exhausting and could trigger medical issues with dire health consequences for my wife and me.
“That it would be wasteful and lead to a further depletion of the estate of the deceased which the Nigerian court is obligated to preserve pending the determination of the Nigerian suit, for me to travel to Nigeria physically to testify to the authenticity of my identity.
“That it is not necessary for me to travel to Nigeria just to testify to the authenticity of my identity.
“That after disputing my identity in the Nigerian Suit, the 1st defendant/respondent again directly and unequivocally admitted and authenticated my identity and discussed with me in writing on multiple occasions in 2023.
“That the validity of my international passport was not disputed by the 1st and 2nd defendants /respondents. They only disputed the identity of the former notary public who notorized it.
“That the international passport of an individual serves as and is the primary proof of the identity of that individual, that is recognised and accepted everywhere in the world, including Nigeria.
“That the real threat to my life and personal safety which has arisen from the 1st defendant /respondent’s animosity and unlawful actions towards me and my Nigerian counsel makes it particularly risky, dangerous, unwise and ill advised for me to travel to Nigeria physically to testify to prove my identity before the Nigerian court.
“That it will cause more harm than good for me to travel to Nigeria physically to testify to prove my identity before the Nigerian court.
“That my physical presence in Nigeria is not required to conduct an examination to confirm my identity. There are alternative and more convenient means by which I can testify before the Nigerian court to prove my identity.
“That the examination can be conducted virtually and the 1st defendant / respondent of his own volition even suggested and requested to have the virtual meeting with me earlier to discuss an out of court settlement of the Nigerian suit.
Addressing the court, Mr Araromi submitted that his client has given copious reasons supported by the documents detailing why he cannot appear before the court. He particularly mentioned the danger inherent, such as the threat to the claimant’s personal liberty and life. In addition, his journey to Nigeria with his wife will further deplete the estate of the deceased, which is the res of the matter.
He submitted that the 1st and 2nd defendants lied and deceived the court to obtain the ruling ordering the claimant to appear in court physically, as they would not bear the cost of the claimant coming down to Nigeria to testify before the court.
Mr. Araromi argued that since the 1st defendant/respondent has confirmed, acknowledged and admitted the identity of the claimant in writing on several occasions as supported by the claimant’s uncontradicted affidavit and exhibits, the issue is therefore no longer in contention and has become a mere academic exercise, which the court is discouraged from engaging in by law.
In making his submissions, Mr. Araromi referred the court to the supporting paragraphs of the affidavits together with the corresponding exhibits; and pointed out that they were not contradicted by the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
He therefore argued that according to law, the court should deem the depositions admitted and should adopt them as such. He urged the court to grant the application as prayed.
In opposing the application of the claimant, the 1st and 2nd defendants /respondents legally represented by Mr Julius Ayoola Esq. filed 18-paragraph counter affidavit dated October 21, 2024, and a written address filed same day
Ayoola submitted that under Order 37, Rule 1, on which the application was brought, the court has considered all the issues raised other than the age of the claimant.
In the 1st and 2nd defendants /respondents particulars of facts in their counter affidavit, they averred that the claimant /Applicant had in application for order of virtual hearing claimed to be working at UPS and would not be allowed to travel but immediately we filed an objection, the same claimant /Applicant became UPS retiree.
“That the same data page of the supposed American International passport which has been dubbed dubious by a Police Investigation report which report is pleaded and unchallenged in this suit is the document now presented as being authenticated by same US Department in same Washington DC immediately the court ordered his physical appearance before the court.
“That not until now, the claimant /Applicant never raised any issues regarding his health, his spouse or that of some 95 year old unknown person and shamefully not even a single medical paper was attached to ground the excuse.
“That in order to bring this suit to a closure, I had requested telephone and zoom conference calls from this claimant /Applicant to put the voice to the name as to clear my doubts but to no avail.
“That I find the averment contained in paragraph 5 a of the claimant /Applicant affidavit disturbingly preposterous that it is unsafe to travel to Nigeria to physically testify due to high rate of Kidnapping, armed robbery and other crimes.
“That it is as a result of all these machinations and manifest inconsistencies that make the physical identity of the claimant /Applicant very fundamental to this suit.
“That I know that the documents attached are not new and intentionally lumped up and do not constitute any special ground for the order of this court to be set aside.
“That as a legal practitioner, I know that special leave means based on exceptional situation or circumstances which the court has not entertained before.
Also addressing the court, Mr. Ayoola submitted that the claimant /Applicant is not a deponent to the affidavit. He submitted that the affidavit was deposed by his counsel and not the claimant. He said that the claimant can argue his case without blackmailing or scandalising the court.
Ayoola said the claimant’s claim that he might be arrested is a figment of imagination.
Replying on point of law, Araromi submitted that the law is that rules of court should be interpreted to assist justice and not to defeat justice and that Order 37, Rule 1 should not be interpreted narrowly, such that it would defeat justice.
He also submitted that the court ordered the claimant (and not his counsel) to appear physically in court.
“We submit that taking this may be very tedious on your lordship, we urge your lordship to grant this application.
After listening to counsel to Parties, Justice Folami adjourned ruling on the application to November 11, 2024.
Recall that a Lagos based legal practitioner, Mr. Oluyomi Dada, and one Mr. Ademola Dada were sued by the claimant Mr. Ronald Lanier, an American, for allegedly obtaining through deceit and fraud Letters of Administration dated December 16, 2021 of the estate of late Miss Janet Abinbola (Abimbola) Dada, an American/Nigerian, and selling one of the houses of the deceased in Victoria Island unlawfully.
The claimant, on his behalf and his siblings, filed the suit marked ID/5526GCM/2022 in 2022 at the Lagos High Court, Ikeja division. He is claiming amongst others that the Probate Registrar (the 3rd Defendant) ought not to have granted the Letters of Administration because the estate was the subject of another suit against Mr. Yomi Dada and the Probate Registrar which was pending at the time, and he (claimant) had filed a caveat against the application for the Letters of Administration in the Estate of Janet Dada.