A former Chairman of defunct Skye Bank, Tunde Ayeni, has said his former mistress, Adaobi Alagwu, is unwilling to let go of their crumbled relationship because of the benefits she was exposed to while it lasted.
Ayeni told the Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) at Dawaki in Abuja that he placed Adaobi on a monthly allowance of N5 million and housed her in one of his N400 million properties while they had a good relationship.
He added that Adaobi resorted to blackmailing him because besides the N5 million allowance, she was made a trustee of the N400 million property at Jabi in Abuja, where she currently resides and from which he is seeking to evict her.
Ayeni spoke yesterday through his lawyer, Silas Onu, at the resumed hearing in the petition he filed at the court, seeking to, among others, declare that Adaobi was never his wife, that they were never married and that he is not the biological father of her daughter.
When the case was called, Onu told the court that although the case was originally scheduled for Adaobi to present her defence, he was aware that she filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
The former bank chairman said he was ready for the application to be heard and determined to make the respondent present her defence to the actual petition.
With the permission of the court, Adaobi’s lawyer, T. G. Okechukwu, moved the application and prayed the court to dismiss Ayeni’s petition.
Okechukwu queried the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition on the grounds that Ayeni was earlier married under the Matrimonial Causes Act, claiming that this was supported by the marriage certificate the petitioner tendered before the court.
To this, Onu argued that Adaobi could no longer question the court’s jurisdiction after submitting to it and filing processes in response to a petition pending before it.
The petitioner’s lawyer noted that the gist of the respondent’s objection was that the court no longer has jurisdiction because the petitioner tendered his marriage certificate with his wife on the last date the matter was heard.
Onu averred that the case before this court is not the determination of a statutory marriage between the petitioner and his wife but that “the court is invited by the petitioner to make a declaration that, upon the return of the dowry paid on the respondent, no marriage ever existed between them”.
He added: “The court would be guided by its records that the petitioner, during his testimony, indicated that he, without knowledge of the Igbo native law and custom, paid the money that turned out to be a dowry, and based on that, the respondent, in her written defence, painted a picture that marriage existed between them.
“In the statement of defence by the respondent, she deliberately and carefully avoided any reference to the refund of dowry.
“After the testimony of the petitioner and exhibits tendered to show that he could not have intended to marry the respondent, she (the respondent) chose to file an application in which she finally admitted, in paragraph three, that the dowry was refunded to the petitioner.”
Onu added that Adaobi’s fresh application “is a ploy to ensure that the court did not make a pronouncement on the existence or otherwise of a marriage between the parties in order for the respondents to continue her social media blackmail of the petitioner and retain her current benefits”.
He added: “This court is invited to make a pronouncement on the supposed belief of the respondent that she is in fact married to the petitioner for which reason she has continued to subject him to series of blackmail after he discovered that the child she claimed was his was not his and discontinued the monthly allowance of N5 million.
“He (the petitioner) also wants her to vacate the N400 million property he bought in Jabi, Abuja, and put her as a trustee, while she currently resides in the property.”
Onu averred that since the parties have submitted themselves under the Customary Court Act, 2007, the court is competent to proceed to make a pronouncement one way or another on the validity or existence of any marriage between the parties based on evidence already presented.
The lawyer faulted the issue of bigamy raised by the respondent in her notice of preliminary objection, arguing that Adaobi is not competent to raise such issues.
He added that the only person with the capacity to raise such an issue, where it existed, is his only wife.
Onu also argued that Adaobi’s new application was meant “to delay the hearing of this case, to enable the respondent continue dramatising it on social media to her benefits”.
He urged the court to refuse the application and direct the respondent to present her defence.
Ruling, a three-member panel, comprising Adlin Achoru (Presiding), Ojo Ajiboye, and Olumide Agbede, adjourned ruling on Adaobi’s preliminary objection till March 11.
