The Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Dawaki, Abuja has fixed March 11, 2025 for its ruling in the preliminary objection by an Abuja-based lawyer, Adaobi Alagwu, against a paternity suit by the former Chairman of defunct Skye Bank, Tunde Ayeni
The bank Chairman is challenging the legality of the baby girl’s paternity in the suit he filed and marked: FCT/CC/CV/DK/03/.
He is also denying any link to Alagwu and the baby girl.
In his statement of claim, Ayeni is further asking the court to take a judicial notice of the fact that he is not the biological father of the said child referred to as “X” in the suit.
But Alagwu in her Counter Affidavit against Ayeni’s complaint disclosed that the DNA Test conducted by the Diagnostic Centre in the United Kingdom at the DDC, 1st Floor, WeWork, 184 Shepherds Bush Road, London, W67NIL, revealed that he is the biological father of the baby girl.
She added that the DNA Test Report with Reference Number 05167, showed a probability of 99.9999997 percent, which indicates that Ayeni is the biological father of the baby girl.
In the preliminary objection against the suit, Alagwu is asking the court to dismiss Ayeni’s suit on the ground that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and entertain the suit.
Adaobi is also relying on the following grounds to challenge the paternity suit:
(a) Section 35 of the Marriage Act, Cap M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 provides any person who is married under this Act, or whose marriage is declared by this Act to be valid, shall be incapable, during the continuance of such marriage of contracting a valid marriage under customary law, but, save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act contained shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any customary law, or in any manner apply to marriages so contract.
(b) Section 384 of the Penal Code provides that whoever having a husband or wife living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extended to SEVEN (7) years and shall also be liable to fine.
(c) Section 47 of the Marriage Act, CAP M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 provides that whoever having contracted marriage under this Act, or any modification or re-enactment thereof, or under any enactment repealed by this Act, during the continuance of such marriage contracts a marriage in accordance with customary law, shall be liable to imprisonment for five (5) years.
(d) By virtue of the Marriage Certificate No. 233/94 tendered as Exhibit 0 in this suit, the Petitioner/Respondent is married under the Act and therefore incapable in law to contract a customary law marriage with the Respondent/Applicant in 2022.
(e) The said Customary law marriage contracted in 2022 is invalid and void ab initio and this Honourable Court now lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(f) Exhibit 1 (Marriage Certificate No. 233194) tendered by the Petitioner/Respondent has disclosed a lack of cause of action as such the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court to hear and determine this suit has been eliminated forthwith.
(g) The action is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, lawyer to Ayeni, Silas Onu, told the court that although the case was originally scheduled for Alagwu to present her defence, he said was aware that she filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.
Onu said he was ready for the application to be heard and determined to enable Alagwu to present her defence to the actual petition.
Lawyer to Alagwu, T.G. Okechukwu, later moved the application and urged the court to dismiss Ayeni’s petition.
Okechukwu also faulted the court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition on the grounds that Ayeni was earlier married under the Matrimonial Causes Act, which fact, he claimed, was supported by the marriage certificate the petitioner tendered before the court.
Responding, Onu argued that Alagwu 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 stated that the case before this court is not the determination of a statutory marriage between the petitioner and his wife, but rather 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.
“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 Alagwu’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.
“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 Adaobi 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 added that under the Customary Court Act, 2007, the parties, having submitted themselves to the court, the court is competent to proceed to make pronouncement one way or another on the validity or existence of any marriage between the parties based on evidence already presented.
Also Read:
He also faulted the issue of bigamy raised by the respondent in her notice of preliminary objection, arguing that Alagwu is not competent to raise such issues.
Onu noted that the only person with the capacity to raise such an issue, where it existed, is his only wife, arguing that Alagwus new application is meant “to delay the hearing of this case, to enable the respondent to continue dramatising it on social media to her benefits”.
Ayeni also informed the court that Alagwu is unwilling to let go of their crumbled relationship because of the many benefits she was exposed to while it lasted.
He further told the court that he placed Alagwu on a monthly allowance of N5 million and housed her in one of his N400 million properties, while the relationship lasted.
According to Ayeni, she has resorted to blackmailing him because beside the N5 million allowance, she was made a trustee of the N400 million property in Jabi, Abuja, where she currently resides, and from which he now seeks to evict her.
He further urged the court to declare that she was never his wife, they were never married, and he is not the biological father of her daughter.
Onu therefore urged the court to refuse Alagwu’s objection and directed her to present her defence.
Having listened to the submissions by the parties, the court’s three-member panel, comprising Adlin Achoru (Presiding), Ojo Ajiboye and Olumide Agbede, adjourned the matter till March 11 for its ruling on Alagwu’s preliminary objection.
Post Views: 16
Follow The Eagle Online Channel on WhatsApp
