…insists there was no marriage
Former chairman of the now defunct Skye Bank, Tunde Ayeni, has said his ex-mistress, Adaobi Alagwu, is unwilling to let go of their crumbling relationship because of the many benefits she was exposed to while it lasted.
Ayeni told the Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Dawaki, Abuja, that he placed Adaobi on a monthly allowance of N5 million and housed her in one of his N400m properties while the relationship lasted.
He added that Adaobi has resorted to blackmailing him because, besides the N5m allowance, she was made a trustee of the N400 property in Jabi, Abuja, where she currently resides, and from which he now seeks to evict her.
Ayeni spoke on Tuesday through his lawyer, Silas Onu, at the resumed hearing in the petition he filed, urging the court, to among others, declare that Adaobi was never his wife; they were never married and that he is not the biological father of her daughter.
Earlier, when the case marked FCT/CC/CV/DK/03/2025 was called, Onu told the court that although the case was originally scheduled for the respondent (Adaobi) to present her defence, he was aware that she filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Onu said he was ready for the application to be heard and determined to enable the respondent to 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, which fact, he claimed, was supported by the marriage certificate the petitioner tendered before the court.
Responding, 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 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.
Read Also: Paternity dispute: ‘Why I may not submit for DNA test’ – Ex-Skye Bank chair Ayeni
“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 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 N5m.
“He (the petitioner) also wants her to vacate the N400m property he bought in Jabi, Anuja, 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, are 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.
He 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.
Onu noted that the only person with the capacity to raise such issue, where it existed, is his only wife, arguing that Adaobi’s new application is 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 directed 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.