- Former Skye Bank Chairman Tunde Ayeni has expressed his disapproval of his former mistress, Adaobi Alagwu, due to the benefits she received during their strained relationship.
- Ayeni disclosed to the Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory that he provided Adaobi with a monthly allowance of N5 million and housed her in his N400 million property.
- Adaobi blackmailed him for N5 million allowance and N400 million property trusteeship in Abuja, seeking eviction from her current residence.
A former Chairman of the now-defunct Skye Bank, Tunde Ayeni, has asserted that his former partner, Adaobi Alagwu, is reluctant to sever ties with their failed relationship due to the advantages she enjoyed during its duration.
Ayeni informed the Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Dawaki, Abuja, that he provided Adaobi with a monthly allowance of N5 million and accommodated her in one of his properties valued at N400 million while their relationship was positive.
He further claimed that Adaobi has resorted to blackmail, as in addition to the N5 million allowance, she was appointed as a trustee of the N400 million property located in Jabi, Abuja, where she currently resides and from which he is attempting to evict her.
Ayeni made these statements yesterday through his attorney, Silas Onu, during the resumed hearing of the petition he filed in court. This petition seeks, among other things, to establish 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 informed the court that although the hearing was initially set for Adaobi to present her defense, he was aware that she had submitted an application contesting the court’s jurisdiction.
The former bank chairman expressed his readiness for the application to be heard and resolved, allowing the respondent to present her defense regarding the main petition.
With the court’s approval, Adaobi’s attorney, T. G. Okechukwu, presented the application and requested the court to dismiss Ayeni’s petition.
Okechukwu questioned the court’s authority to hear and resolve the petition, arguing that Ayeni had previously been married under the Matrimonial Causes Act, a claim substantiated by the marriage certificate submitted by the petitioner. In response, Onu contended that Adaobi could not challenge the court’s jurisdiction after having submitted to it and filed documents in relation to the ongoing petition.
The attorney for the petitioner pointed out that the essence of the respondent’s objection was that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the petitioner presenting his marriage certificate with his wife during the last hearing.
Onu asserted that the matter before the court does not concern the validation of a statutory marriage between the petitioner and his wife, but rather that “the petitioner seeks a declaration from the court that, following the return of the dowry paid to the respondent, no marriage ever existed between them.”
He further stated: “The court will rely on its records, which indicate that the petitioner testified that he, unaware of Igbo native law and custom, paid what turned out to be a dowry, leading the respondent, in her written defense, to suggest that a marriage existed between them.
“In the statement of defense 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 stated that Adaobi’s recent application serves as a tactic to prevent the court from making a determination regarding the existence of a marriage between the parties, thereby allowing the respondents to persist in her social media harassment of the petitioner and maintain her current advantages.
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 asserted that, given that the parties have submitted themselves to the Customary Court Act of 2007, the court possesses the authority to make a determination regarding the validity or existence of any marriage between the parties based on the evidence already submitted.
The attorney challenged the claim of bigamy raised by the respondent in her preliminary objection, contending that Adaobi lacks the standing to raise such matters.
He emphasized that only his legitimate wife has the authority to address such an issue, should it exist.
Onu also contended that Adaobi’s latest application was intended “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 reject the application and compel the respondent to present her defense.
In a ruling, a three-member panel consisting of Adlin Achoru (Presiding), Ojo Ajiboye, and Olumide Agbede, postponed the ruling on Adaobi’s preliminary objection until March 11.
Leave a Reply