THE late national hero, Senator Aguy Georgias’ son, Antony, has approached the court seeking an order to bar the estate executor, Jane Linda Georgias, from disposing the former deputy minister’s immovable property accusing her of fraudulently registering the estate.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Antony filed the court application citing the Master of the High Court, Jane and Manana Esther Georgias as respondents in a matter that is set to be heard in court today.
Georgias died in 2015.
In the application, Antony urged the court to set aside the authorisation of the sale of the immovable property that was granted to Jane by the Master of the High Court arguing Jane’s appointment as an executor was done without consulting other family members.
“This is an application for review of proceedings held by first respondent (Master of High Court) which resulted in the first respondent authorising the sale of immovable properties belonging to the estate by private treaty. The first respondent misdirected himself by failing to observe the principles of natural justice by making a ruling without affording other interested parties an opportunity to be heard. Such act constituted a gross procedural irregularity,” Antony said in his founding affidavit.
Antony further said his mother (Manana) was the only surviving spouse but when the estate was registered, Jane had misrepresented to his father’s lawyers that all the other beneficiaries, including Manana, were not co-operating, prompting the legal practitioners to renounce urgency after which she took over and registered the estate herself.
“This was not correct as she (Jane) had not advised the other beneficiaries except her children alone. In essence, she kept all correspondences to her as a secret. She was then confirmed executor dative of the estate in the absence of the other beneficiaries except her children following an advertisement of the estate using wrong names for the deceased (Georgias) meant to mislead any interested parties,” he said.
“At the time in question she would represent that she was legally married to the late Georgias when in fact my late father had been married to the third respondent (Manana) in terms of the Marriages Act which marriage still subsisted at the time of his death.”
Antony further said after registering the estate, Jane started to dispose of the estate’s properties and used the proceeds for her personal issues during which time “she would misrepresent that the property had been disposed of during the lifetime of my father”.
“The move was to diminish the assets of the estate so as to deprive other beneficiaries of their legitimate share. She created an impression that the estate was insolvent,” he said, adding Jane even alleged Georgias owed her (Jane) son-in-law some monies which she wanted to pay back by selling the immovable assets.
“. . . Further, the main basis of the authority sought was that her son-in-law had given the late Georgias a loan on the understanding that certain immovable properties were to be sold…..this was a calculated move since she would directly benefit from the son-in-law,” Antony said.
“In the submissions, she misled the first respondent by attaching her personal bills for her personal properties. Further, she attached medical bills that had already been paid off and also medical quotations as if it was money owing when it was mere quotations and some bills belonging to a private limited company which is operational, being Trinity Engineering (Pvt) Ltd and Pargate Mine.”