Forgery Of Will Or CODICIL: More Trouble For Barr. Peter Eze


New Doc_1

By Ogbonna Casmir, Enugu

It appears the embattled Enugu Lawyer; Mr. Peter Nwabunike Eze is in for more troubles for alleged forgery of the Last WILL of Late Arc. Anosike Paul Chidebe Iloabachie which set the family into legal battle.

It was gathered late Arc. P. C. A. Iloabachie had a WILL date 15th September, 2007 and deposed at Enugu probate Registry but Mr. Eze allegedly made another WILL dated 27th October, 2009 and smuggled into probate registry bringing in conflict with the earlier deposed WILL.

This set the family members of Late Iloabachie into suspecting one another leading to Barr. Mrs. Adiba Chizoba Ezeuko, and Mrs. Nwabogo Ebele Nwokedi as beneficiaries of the Estate of Late Mr. Anosike Paul Chidebe Iloabachie suing Probate Registrar, High Court, Enugu; Lilian Ifenyinwa Iloabachie; Oseloka Thomas Iloabachie; Jideofor Ugochukwu Iloabachie before the Enugu High Court in Suit No. E/159M/14.

Though the parties has settled to accept the WILL of 15th of September, 2007 as the valid and the only Last WILL of their late father and entered into a Consent Judgment, dated 14th of March, 2016, the case is far from over.

The presiding judge, Justice Innocent A. Umezulike said though the principal parties have come to agreement to settle the dispute out of court but it is trite that parties cannot by their compromise sweep under the carpet any indication of criminality in the entire transactions leading to authorship of the WILL of 2007 and 2009.

The court however renewed its earlier order of 22nd September, 2015 which directed the Commissioner of Police Enugu State to arrest and bring Mr. Peter Nwabunike Eze to the court for purposes of assisting this court under Order 55 Rule 6 of the High Court Rules 2006 to clear some or all the legal headache relative to the existence of two WILLS in respect of the Estate of Arch. A. P. C. Iloabachie.

The Court has adjourned the case to Monday 11th April, 2016 for Mr. Peter Eze’s Cross-examination in the case.


Meanwhile the Consent Judgment, reads; “upon this application coming up today for report of settlement in which the principal parties have come to agreement to settle the dispute out of court. And after hearing the submissions of I. Aroh for the applicants, U. Chukwu and M. U. Izuegbunam with him in the brief, David Agbo for the 1st Respondent. Chief G. Tagbo Ike for the 2nd Respondent. Chief Chris Aghanwa for the 3rd party.

The court adjudge as follows:

“That Arc. Paul Chidebe Anosike Iloabachie made a will and last Testament of 15th September, 2007, and same have been unsealed and read on 30th day of October, 2013 at the probate Registry of this court.

“That the process for issuance of the Probate of the said WILL was on course before Counsel Peter Nwabunike Eze who had prepared the WILL for the testator declared that the testator had another purported WILL dated 27/10/2009.

“That the parties do not accept the said purported Last WILL and Testament of 27th day of October, 2009, and do hereby agree interse to continue pursuing the procurement of probate at the probate Registry, High Court of Enugu State, Enugu based on the earlier WILL of 15/9/2007.

“That for the avoidance of any doubt therefore, parties have also agreed to bound by the WILL of 15/9/2007 supra and would not contest any disposition or device made therein in favour of any person.

“That each party shall bear his or her own cost.”

52 total views, 1 views today

About the Author

2 Comments on this article. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. John Onah April 11, 2016 at 9:24 am -

    This is most absurd and alien to our jurisprudence. The CJ having delivered a judgment – a consent judgment as it were. Is he not functus officio? What is the cause or matter that he is now handling such that he has directed that the lawyer be arrested and brought before him? If the CJ considers that there may be evidence of criminality disclosed by the case, is the proper thing for him to do not to refer the matter to the police for investigation? Even the layman would understand that the CJ is biased as the order is not only wrong but shows that the Judge has an axe to grind.

    Observers in the Legal Profession especially those who follow with keen interest the series of petitions that the lawyer in question has been bold enough to file against the Chief Judge to the NJC accusing the judge of various unethical conducts and abuse of judicial office, are of the view that the judge is simply using his office to persecute the lawyer for calling a spade a spade.

    What is playing out in the Enugu State judiciary is simply the brazen act of arbitrariness using the apparatus of public office by the Chief Judge to descend on an innocent citizen who dared to ask questions on issues affecting him.

    As the saying goes. It is like a drowning man clinging on a straw for anchor. All these distractions will never be answers to several valid issues raised against him.

    As long as our leaders continue to frown at any attempt to question their acts or demand that they account for their actions by the citizens we shall continue to suffer apathy in different spheres of our lives.

  2. Emmanuel Amadi April 11, 2016 at 12:14 am -

    If as the Order says there is an indication of criminality, it is not for the CJ to order the arrest of the lawyer but for him to refer the matter to the police for investigation and possible action.

    On what basis is the CJ making the Order for arrest? He states in the Order that there is only an indication of criminality, how would that translate to an arrest without first investigating the matter.

    Further, if the case has now concluded by virtue of the agreement between the parties, where does the CJ derive the power to order an arrest?

    It seems to me that the CJ is exercising a power he does not have in the present case. It is important that Courts do not abuse their powers and portray our judiciary in a very bad light. Our country has had enough of bad image. I do not see how we can attract foreign direct investment if our judiciary is perceived negatively