26/11/2025
NYIANAKA v. ANYIKA
(2021) LPELR-52817(CA)
ISSUE
WILLS AND PROBATE - RESEALING
- Position of the law as regards resealing of probate/letters of administration; whether letters of administration granted in one State and sought to be used in another state must be resealed in order to give jurisdiction to the High Court of the State where the property is situate
PRINCIPLE
"By Section 2 of the Probate (Re-sealing) Act Cap. P31, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the law provides that: "Where the High Court of a State has either before or after the commencement of this Act, granted probate or letters of administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person, the probate or letters so granted may, subject to the provisions of this Act, on being produced to, and a copy thereof deposited with the High Court of any other State, be resealed with the seal of that Court." While Section 3 provides for conditions to be fulfilled of resealing thus: "The High Court of a State shall, before re-sealing a probate or letters of administration under this Act, be satisfied - (a) that probate duty has been paid in respect of so much, if any, of the estate as is liable to probate duty in that State; and (b) in the case of letters of administration, that security has been given in a sum sufficient in amount to cover the property, if any, in that State to which the letters of administration relate, and may require such evidence, if any, as it thinks fit as to the domicile of the deceased person." ?The provision for resealing is regulated by the various High Court Laws and Rules. In the FCT, it is regulated by Order 49, Rule 55 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 now Order 64 Rule 45 of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018. The Order provides that: "1. An application for the resealing of probate or administration with the Will attached granted by the Court of a place not within the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, shall be made by the person to whom the grant was made or by any person authorized in writing to apply on his behalf. 2. On any such application - (a) an Inland Revenue affidavit shall be lodged as if the application were one for a grant in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; (b) the application shall be advertised in such manner as a Registrar may direct and shall be supported by an oath sworn by the person making the application. 3. On an application for the resealing of such a grant - (a) a Registrar shall not require sureties except where it appears to him that the grant is made to a person or for a purpose mentioned in Rule 54(1) (a) to (f), or except where he considers that there are special circumstances making it desirable to require sureties... The effect of re-sealing a letter of administration in a State High Court granted by another State High Court is to make it seem as if the seal of Court is granted by the High Court of that State. That is, re-sealing enables a grant made in one State to be effective within another State. The trial judge in his judgment on page 240 of the record of appeal held that: "I have carefully perused the processes filed in this case by the Plaintiff as well as the counter affidavit by the Plaintiff to the Preliminary Objection and I have failed to see any paragraph wherein the Plaintiff states that he has resealed the letter of administration aforesaid. To my mind therefore, the said letter of administration is valid to the extent only that it can be used to administer any property forming part of the estate of the deceased in Benue State until it is resealed by the FCT before such power can be exercise on property within the FCT which forms part of the said estate... the Plaintiff has evoke the jurisdictional power of this Court based on the said letter of administration issued by the Benue State High Court without first resealing in the FCT High Court as required by law." I agree with the trial judge that the omission of the Appellant to reseal the letters of administration in the FCT High Court resulted in their lack of locus standi to institute the action in the FCT High Court. Indeed, from the statement of claim, the Appellant lacks the locus to institute an action given that he has not resealed the letters of Administration. To have the locus to institute an action in relation to properties in the FCT High Court, the letters of Administration must be resealed. The Appellant's counsel also submitted that by ADMINISTRATOR/EXE. ESTATE ABACHA VS. EKE-SPIFF (SUPRA), a party without grant of letters of administration lacks the locus standi to sue or be sued in the name of the deceased and that the Respondent did not file a defence to show that letters of administration was granted to him to give a right to him to acquire the property from the mistress of the deceased and by resting his case on that of the plaintiff's case the Respondent left the evidence uncontroverted. By invoking the issue of jurisdiction, the Court need not look into the statement of defence of the Respondent. All the Court must do is to look at the originating processes and the affidavits filed. The Appellant's arguments on these two points are therefore of no moment. ?Additionally, the Appellant argued that the Respondent did not depose to an affidavit as to his legal right over the property but had the mistress of the deceased depose to it. However, the law is settled that any competent witness is qualified to swear to an affidavit as to facts within his knowledge or on information as stipulated in the Evidence Act. Having found that the Appellant has no locus standi, it delimits the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain his compliant. I will state again that the resealing of letters of administration is done so the High Court of one State can be vested with the power to act upon the estate of the deceased which was granted in another State. It has the effect as if it is a fresh grant in respect of the estate and administrators or executors as such they become entitled to exercise authority on properties in the new jurisdiction. The law above was upheld in FEDERAL ADMINISTRATOR -GENERAL VS. ARIGBABU (1964) NMLR 135. Similarly, in LIJADU VS. FRANKLIN (1965) LPELR - 25214 (SC), the Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether probate admitted in the High Court of Western Nigeria must be resealed in the High Court of Lagos it held that: "...A grant of administration or other authority to represent a deceased person under the law of a foreign country" (i.e. any country which is not England) has no operation in England. Its effect was explained by Scrutton, J., in Haas v. Atlas Assurance Company Limited (19131 2 K.B. 209, in these terms: - An executor could not assert or rely on his right in any Court without showing that he had previously established it in the Probate Division either by suit, by probate in solemn form, or in the ordinary form. The usual way in which he proved it was by the production of a copy of the will certified under the seal of the Court. That state of the law was described by Jervis in Johnson v. Warwick 17 C.B. 516, as being that the Court had not the legal optics through which to look at the will until the will was proved in the form provided by English law... The passage cited from Haas v. Atlas Assurance Company Limited refers to some of the methods by which an executor may establish his right. In addition, probate granted in Northern Ireland, Scotland, or specified parts of the Commonwealth will be recognized by the English Coutts if the grant has been resealed in England; See Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edition Volume 16 pages 256 - 263. In Nigeria the Probates (Resealing) Act, Cap, 161, makes similar provision, and enables probate granted in any part of the Commonwealth to be resealed in the High Court of Lagos." See also OGBUEHI VS. NNAJI & ORS (2015) LPELR - 25992 (CA). From the cases above, it is indeed the law as rightly stated by the trial judge that resealing of the letters of administration is a requirement in order for the Court to have jurisdiction to hear the matter. This essentially means that when letters of administration granted in one State is sought to be used in another state it must be resealed in order to give jurisdiction to the High Court of the State where the property is situate." Per MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, JCA (Pp 16 - 23 Paras E - D)
Law Diary, and Sam Atoe & Company
26/11/25
