The Probate Court of the Calabar Judicial Division has ordered the joint administration of the estate of the late former Secretary to the Cross River State Government, Chief Wilfred Oden Inah, following a dispute among his children over the alleged sale of a family property in Calabar.
The order was made in Suit No. LA/600/2021 amid controversy surrounding a property located at No. 63, Ibom Layout, Big Qua Town, Calabar, which some of the deceased’s children alleged was sold by their brother, Maurice Oden Inah, without the consent of other members of the family.
The property, comprising a block of four flats and a large expanse of land, was allegedly sold to Emmanuel Emele Utum for more than ₦100 million.
Some family members, however, claimed the property was worth between ₦300 million and ₦400 million and alleged that their late father intended each of his children to take a flat while Maurice would retain the surrounding land.
In its intervention, the Probate Court directed that the application for Letters of Administration be amended to accommodate four of the deceased’s children representing the different maternal lines of the family.
Those named are Mrs Kosi Oden Inah, Mr Maurice Oden Inah, Mr Ofem Oden Inah and Mrs Mildred Manama Ikheloa, who were directed to submit the required biodata to the Probate Registry.
The order followed a Notice of Caveat filed by Bima Oden Inah, one of the deceased’s daughters, seeking to prevent Letters of Administration from being issued without notice to her and other siblings.
Ofem Inah alleged that the disputed sale was contrary to their father’s wishes that the property remain within the family.
His sister, Mildred Ikheloa, also said the family wanted the property restored to the estate and the money allegedly paid by the purchaser refunded.
The dispute was also reportedly brought to the attention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Sources claimed that Maurice was detained by the anti-graft agency in connection with the matter but subsequently failed to honour further invitations, reportedly on health grounds.
Some family members also accused him of collecting rents from other properties belonging to the estate without convening family meetings or rendering accounts.
The allegations against Maurice have not been determined by a court.
The deceased’s widow, Chief Mrs Kosi Inah, also denied knowledge of the disputed transaction or receiving any proceeds from it.
She maintained that she could not have authorised the sale of her late husband’s property contrary to what she understood to be his wishes.
The alleged purchaser, Utum, however, insisted that he followed due process and carried out appropriate checks before acquiring the property, including engaging with the deceased’s widow.
He said he was willing to relinquish the property if the money he paid was refunded, stressing that the transaction was not a “do-or-die affair.”
The Probate Court’s decision does not determine the validity or otherwise of the disputed sale. Rather, it ensures broader family representation in the administration of the late Inah’s estate while the disagreements surrounding the property and other assets continue to be addressed.
