There’s a new staggering twist to the legal saga on late Managing Director of Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, Mr. Tayo Aderinokun.
The drama unfolded when the youngest daughter of the deceased Miss Oluwatise Aderinokun told a Federal High Court in Lagos that her late father’s shares in the bank were fraudulently manipulated, while he was in a coma at a London hospital.
Oluwatise, consequently, asked the court to appoint an independent body to oversee the estate of her late father pending the determination of a suit instituted against the bank and the trustees of the estate.
In the alternative, she prayed the court to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining GTB, Datamax Registrars Limited and Kanali Investments Limited, which is one of the vehicles late Aderinokun used to acquire his shares in the bank, from recognising the first son of the late banker, Mr. Babatunwa Aderinokun, as a beneficiary of the estate.
The applicant said that her late father was said to have participated in the bank’s Extra-ordinary General Meeting, where he allegedly diluted his shares in the bank, at the same period the deceased was in a coma in London.
Oluwatise had dragged GTB Plc, alongside it’s registrar, Datamax Registrar Limited, Kanali Investments Limited, Day Waterman Company Limited, Caribod Investment Limited, Mr. Babatunwa Aderinokun, and Investment One Financial Services Limited before the court over the alleged manipulation of her late father’s shares in the bank.
At the resumed hearing of the matter, on Friday, Oluwatise’s lawyer, Mr. Osari Eghobamien (SAN), informed the court of his client’s application seeking an interlocutory injunction against the defendants.
The interlocutory injunction, according to Eghobamien, sought an order of the court restraining the second and third defendants (Datamax Registrar Limited and Kanali Investments Limited) from recognising the sixth defendant (Mr. Babatunwa Aderinokun,) as a trustee of the late Aderinokun’s estate.
The injunction also sought an order of the court for the appointment of an independent body to manage the estate of the deceased pending the conclusion of the suit.
While arguing the application, Eghobamien said his client had legal right to institute the suit, because the shares were purchased in the name of third, fourth and fifth defendants, noting that the principal trust was that the shares were paid for by late Tayo Aderinokun.
He stated further that the principle of law is that where funds were paid in the name of parties, the beneficiaries become beneficial owners, adding that late Aderinokun throughout his life instructed GTB and Datamax to pay the money into the accounts of the third to fifth defendants.
He also alleged that both GTB and Datamax assisted in breach of trust.
He, therefore, urged the court to grant the injunctions sought by his client.
Lawyers to the defendants, however, urged the court to refused the application.
Lawyer to the second and fifth defendants, Mr. Ebun Shofunde (SAN), urged the court to refuse the application.
Shofunde argued that, though, third to fifth defendants were owned by late Aderinokun, how the deceased owned them were not stated in the plantiff’s affidavit.
Shofunde further argued that Aderinokun’s Will did not establish the prima facie owner of the estate, rather, it only stated how his properties were to be shared.
Lawyer to the sixth defendant, Mr. Olumide Aju, also urged the court to refuse the application.
He stated that the executors of late Aderinokun’s Will have met and distributed his shares in the three companies to the beneficiaries as stated in the Will, adding that the plaintiff had been given the 25 percent of the shares to which she is entitled.
