Nigeria: Solicitor’s trip failed to prove identity of client
A tribunal has heavily criticised a solicitor who acted for a woman the judge decided did not actually exist, in a bid to stop a property sale.
Judge Ewan Paton in the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal said Kingsley Efemuai was, at the very least, “guilty of the most astonishing complacency and credulity” over what appeared to be an attempted fraud.
In what he described as “quite extraordinary” proceedings referred to the tribunal by the Land Registry, the judge ultimately decided neither to uphold the challenge to the transfer of a property in North London nor to approve the transfer itself to a senior Nigerian lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome.
The house was registered in 1993 in the name of ‘Tali Shani’. A man who gave evidence to the tribunal said that was him, but a woman in Nigeria challenged this, saying she was Tali Shani and knew nothing about the transfer.
At the heart of the case, the judge said, were “mutual allegations of identity fraud by impersonation. These in turn generated multiple allegations of forgery of documents, fraud, conspiracy and corruption of public officials”.
Ms Shani was represented by Mr Efemuai, a dual-qualified solicitor and Nigerian lawyer who operates from Kent firm Westfields Solicitors. She failed to appear to give evidence remotely from Nigeria in June 2024 and was then said to have died later in the year.
Judge Paton said he believed “barely a word of the documentary and oral evidence” put forward on behalf of Ms Shani.
“I do not accept that ‘she’ was ever a real living person. I do not accept that ‘she’ therefore died, whether in hospital or in a mysterious car accident on the road to Abuja. I certainly do not accept that ‘she’ purchased this property in London in 1993 in her ‘hey days’.”
The judge also did not believe that men who said they were her son and her cousin actually were, and found that “a large number of documents in this case have been produced or procured by forgery or deception” – including Ms Shani’s witness statements and even her alleged death certificate.
“The most disappointing and disturbing aspect of my findings in this regard is the conduct and evidence of Mr Kingsley Efemuai, a solicitor in England and Wales and an officer of the court.
“It is not possible, on such material as I have before me, to find that he has acted dishonestly and is actively complicit in what appears to be a calculated attempted fraud orchestrated by others.
“At the very least, however, he is guilty of the most astonishing complacency and credulity in his conduct of these proceedings.”
This was particularly so in his continued acceptance of instructions from Efewor & Co, the Nigerian firm which he said had instructed him on Ms Shani’s behalf, and from the man who claimed to be her son.
The judge found it “very striking” that Mr Efemuai did not meet his client face-to-face prior to trial.
Given that Chief Ozekhome’s case from the start was that Ms Shani did not exist, “one might have expected ‘her’, and English solicitors apparently instructed by ‘her’, to be ‘busting a gut’ to refute such a damning allegation.
“It is, one would have thought, a fairly simple matter to prove one’s own existence. Likewise, one might have expected an English solicitor to be indignant at an allegation that his client did not exist, and assiduous in his efforts to prove otherwise.”
The allegation “could easily have been refuted and dealt with at any time during the course of proceedings” – but was not.
The only identity document provided to the court was a travel certificate that the judge said could “easily be obtained by false means; and was in this case”.
The hearing in June 2024 was adjourned part-heard because both counsel said they were potentially professionally embarrassed by the evidence that had come out.
Two months later, Mr Efemuai went to Nigeria and the judge criticised his “astonishingly complacent and thin evidence” about the visit and what the solicitor himself described as the “golden opportunity” to meet his client.
“Mr Efemuai singularly failed to grasp that opportunity. He took no attendance note or other record of the visit. He was not even able to name its exact date.
“He said that he met a woman at the offices of Edewor & Co, but simply ‘greeted her politely’ and did not ask her any significant questions – about the case, her identity, her evidence (or lack of it), her health or her prognosis.
“He did not – as he could very easily have done – take a single photograph or video of his supposed client, or of him pictured with that client. He did not seek to gather further evidence from her – for example, by a video recorded interview or similar. He thought that to do so would be ‘disrespectful’ to his hosts. He then left, without more.
“I found this evidence, as I have said, disappointing and disturbing. It is very far from what I would expect from a conscientious solicitor keen to refute the serious allegation that he acted for a non-existent client.
“It savours far more, I am afraid, of a willingness to turn a blind eye, and to accept unquestioningly the word and continued instructions of Edewor & Co, without verifying the position for himself.”
But, again, the judge said he was willing to give Mr Efemuai the benefit of the doubt “and accept that he was briefly presented with an elderly woman as his alleged client at such a meeting”.
Judge Paton struck out the application and found that actually the property had been bought in 1993 by a very prominent and now deceased (but not before giving evidence via video link) former Nigerian general and politician called General Jeremiah Useni. He used the fake name ‘Tali Shani’ to do so.
Whether or not the man who gave evidence as Tali Shani had that name in 1993, the judge said, “I am quite satisfied that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the purchase of this property in London at that time”.
He directed the Chief Land Registrar to cancel Chief Ozekhome’s application to be registered as the property’s proprietor. Its title would vest in whoever obtained a grant of probate in respect of General Useni’s English assets.
I am surprised that none of the documents were sent for examination by a forensic document examiner. That might have provided a solid base of evidence as to what was or was not counterfeit.