News

Zambian Adoption Recognised in English High Court Probate Trial: Arfan Khan Acts for Successful Claimant

Introduction

Arfan Khan appeared for the successful Claimant in a contested probate trial before Deputy Master Jefferis in the High Court, Chancery Division. The extempore Judgment was delivered on 30 July 2025, following a 2.5-day trial. The Court granted the Claimant a declaration that he was an adopted son of the deceased and, accordingly, entitled to letters of administration. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s costs, including an interim payment on account of such costs.

This was notwithstanding the Defendant’s reliance on a judgment of the Zambian High Court, which had previously granted letters of administration over the same estate to her and another relative.

Procedural Background

The Defendant was initially legally represented, but her legal team withdrew. The Defendant then appeared in person at trial, accompanied by a McKenzie friend, authorised by the Court.

During the hearing, the Defendant made three separate applications to adjourn, one of which was supported by medical evidence that the Court found inadequate. Applying established legal principles on adjournments, the Court refused all three applications and awarded the Claimant costs in respect of each.

Factual Background

The Claimant was adopted in Zambia in November 2002 and subsequently relocated to the United Kingdom, where he lived with the deceased. He was enrolled in school and registered with a GP surgery, naming the deceased as his parent. His UK immigration records confirmed entry as her adopted child.

The Claimant’s adoption status was never disputed during the deceased’s lifetime. However, following her death, the Defendant allegedly excluded the Claimant from estate matters and removed documentation evidencing the adoption. The Defendant later obtained letters of administration in Zambia, but it emerged that the Zambian Court had not been shown key adoption documents, which were subsequently produced in the English High Court proceedings.

The Issues

The central issue for the Court was whether the Claimant had been lawfully adopted by the deceased and, if so, whether he was entitled to letters of administration in priority to the Defendant. The Defendant opposed the Claimant’s application and sought a grant in favour of the deceased’s sibling. She further alleged that the Claimant’s birth certificate was a forgery and invited the English Court to recognise the Zambian grant of administration.

During trial, the Defendant introduced—for the first time—an adoption petition suggesting that the deceased had applied to adopt another relative. She contended that this undermined the Claimant’s case and highlighted alleged inconsistencies in the Claimant’s parentage.

Expert Evidence and Submissions

Arfan Khan conducted the examination-in-chief of the Claimant’s expert in Zambian law. The expert gave evidence as to the authenticity and legal effect of the Zambian adoption documents, confirming that they were valid and binding under Zambian law.

Following the Defendant’s withdrawal from the proceedings, the Court adapted the trial process to ensure procedural fairness by undertaking the cross-examination itself that would ordinarily have been conducted by the Defendant. In response to judicial questions, the expert reaffirmed the validity and binding nature of the adoption order.

Recognition of the Zambian Grant

On behalf of the Claimant, Arfan Khan submitted that the Zambian grant of letters of administration should not be recognised in England and Wales, as it had been obtained in breach of the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the Zambian court had not been shown material adoption documents. It was further argued that the adoption documents were authentic and legally valid under Zambian law.

The Court accepted these submissions and declined to give effect to the Zambian judgment. The Judge therefore ordered that the Zambian grant should not be resealed in England and Wales.

The Court also noted a further submission advanced by Arfan Khan on behalf of the Claimant: that, based on the date of birth recorded in the documentary evidence, the individual named in the Defendant’s adoption petition (who was not a party) could not have been a minor at the material time and, accordingly, could not have been lawfully adopted under English law.

Arfan Khan was instructed on behalf of the Claimant by C V Brooks Solicitors