Woman falsely accused of being dead in highly unusual probate case: Ashimola v Samuel

Imagine finding out you’ve been declared legally dead – and someone else now controls your property. This unsettling scenario unfolded in the case of Ashimola & Anor v Samuel & Anor [2025] EWHC 502 (Ch), where the High Court unravelled a calculated and deeply troubling fraud. A British woman, Ms June Ashimola, was falsely declared deceased while living abroad. Armed with forged documents, fraudsters secured a grant of probate over her £172,000 estate – and it all went unchecked until it reached court.

This high-profile, precedent-setting case serves as a striking example of how probate fraud can infiltrate the legal system and stands as a wake-up call for property owners, particularly those with international connections.

The Mechanics of the Fraud

The fraud hinged on two key fictions: a forged Nigerian death certificate, and a supposed marriage to one Bakare Lasisi. These were the foundations for a 2019 application claiming Ms Ashimola had died intestate and had been married to Mr Lasisi since 1993. Acting under a purported power of attorney from Mr Lasisi, Ruth Samuel used the documents to obtain a grant of Letters of Administration in October 2022.

The Probate Registry accepted the application without raising concerns – no red flags, no follow-up checks. Meanwhile, Ms. Ashimola was alive and residing in Nigeria.

Investigations later revealed that the scheme was orchestrated by convicted fraudster Tony Ashikodi, with Samuel facilitating the probate application. Upon discovery, Ms. Ashimola had to engage in legal proceedings to reclaim control of her own estate.

What is the Legal Framework for Probate?

The probate system is designed to distribute assets fairly after death, but it can be vulnerable to abuse if safeguards fail.

Under the Administration of Estates Act 1925, the estate of someone who dies without a will (intestate) is inherited according to a fixed hierarchy, with a surviving spouse typically taking precedence. By fabricating a marriage, the fraudsters positioned their invented heir at the top of this hierarchy.

To address such abuses, Section 121 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 empowers the High Court to revoke any grant of representation obtained by fraud or mistake. Additionally, the court retains inherent equitable jurisdiction to set aside actions rooted in dishonesty.

The forged documents – the death and marriage certificates – should have attracted scrutiny. These records are regulated by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Marriage Act 1949. Forgery in this context is not only actionable civilly but also constitutes a criminal offense under the Fraud Act 2006, carrying a maximum penalty of ten years’ imprisonment.

In essence, the law provides mechanisms to rectify such fraud – but only once it has been detected.

So how did the court uncover the truth in this case?

The Court’s Response in Ashimola v Samuel

Deputy Master Linwood gave careful consideration to the evidence.

Despite residing in Nigeria, Ms Ashimola gave live testimony via video link. Her Nigerian passport, issued after her alleged death, confirmed her identity. The judge compared Ms Ashimola’s face to her passport photograph in real time and was satisfied she was who she claimed to be.

The documents submitted to obtain the grant – particularly the death certificate – lacked authenticity. The court found no credible evidence of her death, no proof of any marriage to Mr Lasisi, and indeed, no indication that Mr Lasisi ever existed.

Consequently, the grant of Letters of Administration was revoked on the grounds of fraud. This decision reaffirms the enduring legal principle that falsehoods have no place in the administration of justice.

What Should Clients Be Doing Now?

This judgment is a reminder that prevention remains the best defence.

If you own property, especially across borders, you should consider taking the following steps:

Make and maintain a valid will.

A well-drafted will, regularly reviewed, makes it far harder for bad actors to exploit intestacy rules or forge false claims.

Appoint and inform trusted individuals.

Let trusted family members or your solicitor know where key documents are kept – especially if you own property overseas or spend time abroad.

Secure your documents.

Store original certificates and legal records safely. Where possible, use certified copies only for official applications, and consider solicitor-managed document storage if you’re frequently abroad.

Be proactive with legal advice.

If you suspect that someone may be attempting to interfere with your estate, or if you’ve been alerted to a suspicious application, early legal intervention can be critical.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The Ashimola case is likely to influence how the Probate Registry and courts handle suspicious applications moving forward. In this case, the forged death and marriage certificates were accepted with minimal scrutiny. Currently, there is no routine cross-checking of overseas records, creating a critical risk for clients with international ties and opening the door to exploitation by those willing to manipulate bureaucratic blind spots. We anticipate increased scrutiny around grants involving foreign documents and possibly a shift toward digital verification processes.

In the longer term, deeper reform may be needed. Blockchain-based registries, biometric ID checks, and structured international cooperation could offer a more secure framework – but progress has been slow.

In the meantime, estate planning remains your best line of defence. This isn’t just about tax or inheritance. It’s about making sure your estate is protected from abuse.

Even in a digital world, paper documents still depend on human judgment. Without proper verification, even the most official-looking records can open the door to fraud.

Final Thoughts

Ashimola is a stark reminder that justice depends not just on the law itself, but on the processes and vigilance that uphold it.

Fraud thrives in silence, and by the time it’s uncovered, the damage is often already done. The limitations of reactive justice are also evident. By the time the fraud was uncovered, legal costs had soared – reportedly nearing the full value of the estate. Earlier intervention, closer scrutiny at the application stage, or even basic identity verification could have prevented the grant from being issued.

Being vigilant may help uncover a fraud, but careful planning is what keeps your estate secure.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the contact form function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/