Connect with us

Judiciary

Helen Prest Has No Shares In First Foundation – Oluwayemisi Ajayi

Published

on

Dr. Tosin Ajayi's Children Repudiate Helen Prest’s Claim To Their Father's Estate -Crystal News

As the legal battle rages on between former Miss Nigeria, Helen Prest, and Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi, the wife of the deceased medical doctor and businessman, Dr. Ademola Oluwatosin Ajayi, a new twist has been added to the case as Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi has filed an application before the Federal High Court in Lagos, urging the court to set aside the order obtained by Ms. Helen Prest and her daughter, Tomisin Ajayi, granting them leave to institute the pending action and restraining Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi from running First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited, the company in which she and her husband are shareholders.

adron lemon friday

She contended that the order is a nullity on the ground of fundamental irregularity, lack of jurisdiction and denial of fair hearing.

According to Vanguard, the presiding Judge, Justice Tijjani Ringim, gave the ruling in an application filed by Miss Tomisin Ajayi and Mrs Helen Prest Ajayi as 1st and 2nd Applicants respectively, through their counsel, Mr Abiodun Jellili Owonikoko, (SAN).

The 1st to 4th Respondents/Applicants in the suit are First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Ltd, Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC); Mrs Oluwayemisi Ajayi and a lawyer, Mr Patrick Abak and the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents are being represented by Mr. Kunle Adegoke SAN.

First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited was owned by the late Dr Tosin Ajayi in equal shares with her wife, Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi.

However, the Respondents have also filed a counter-affidavit to the originating motion stating their reactions in addition to an application to set aside the order of court granted on 5th August 2021.

In an affidavit sworn to by a legal practitioner Afeez Ishola Soliu of Kunle Adegoke & Co., the deponent averred that on the 9th day of September 2021, upon conducting a search of the Court’s file in respect of this suit, to their greatest dismay, they discovered that the matter had come upon two occasions, without service of hearing notice of the proceedings on the respondents, but that ruling had also been delivered in respect of the originating summons by which the Plaintiffs sought orders to restrain the Respondents.

Due to the apparent deliberate suppression of facts and a glaring act of bad faith on the part of the Plaintiffs, the court was misled to entertain the proceeding of 2nd of September, 2021 under the belief that the respondents had notice of the said proceedings. No form of hearing notice whatsoever, whether emanating from the court or from the applicants, was served on their counsel or even on the respondents.

Helen Prest Has No Shares In First Foundation – Mrs Oluwayemisi Ajayi

The Respondents contended that failure to serve hearing notice is a breach of a fundamental principle of fair hearing and that as at the 7th day of September 2021 when the originating summons dated 23rd July, 2021was heard and determined, the respondents were still within time to respond to the allegations of the Plaintiffs, but were denied the right to respond to the said originating summons.

By virtue of the foregoing, the proceeding of the court conducted without the issuance of hearing notice to the respondents are liable to be set aside, the Respondents contended. Consequently, the three respondents comprising; First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited, Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi and Mr Patrick Abak are urging the court to set aside the entire proceedings of the court conducted on the 2nd and 7th days of September 2021 for being a nullity on grounds of fundamental irregularity, lack of jurisdiction and denial of fair hearing. They also sought an order compelling the plaintiffs, Mrs Hellen Prest Ajayi and her daughter Miss Tomisin Ajayi to effect payment, to the three respondents in respect of the undertaking made pursuant to which the plaintiffs interlocutory prayers were granted by the court, the said order being liable to be set aside.

In a counter-affidavit sworn to by Mrs Oluwayemisi Ajayi against the originating motion which is the substantive suit, Mrs Ajayi stated that she was aware that Miss Tomisin presents herself as the love chid of an adulterous relationship between her deceased husband, Dr Tosin Ajayi and his adulteress, Ms Helen Prest. According to Mrs. Ajayi, although she is not in a position to confirm if Tomisin Ajayi is a child of her deceased husband as her deceased husband never introduced her or to any other member of the family, since her husband’s passing, she and her children have, in good faith, decided not to dispute the paternity of Tomisin but decided to accept her as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of her deceased husband together with her children.

Mrs Ajayi averred further that, at the time of the incorporation, the name of the company was First Foundation Medical Company Limited on 6th June,1980 before it was changed to First Medical Engineering Company Limited in April 2002. And that since the incorporation of the company, she has always been a shareholder and Director of the company and holds 50% of the shares of the company. She said that at no time did her deceased husband and her terminate their marriage as their marriage was always extant and never dissolved till he died.

Her late husband, Dr. Ademola Oluwatosin Ajayi, and she were married under the Marriage Act on the 6th day of July 1974 and the marriage was celebrated at the Divisional Office Ijebu-Ode and that the second plaintiff in this suit, Miss Helen Prest was her husband’s adulteress who, despite knowing that her deceased husband was always a married man, continued to have an illicit relationship with him as a concubine.

To buttress this point, Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi attached to her response a handwritten note written by Miss Helen Prest sometime in 1998 wherein she admitted to being aware that her late husband and she were still married and not divorced. It was in pursuance of this illicit affair that Ms. Helen Prest presented Tomisin as the love child of their affair. Mrs. Ajayi stated in her affidavit that Helen Prest was never in any legally cognizable relationship with her deceased husband as he was always married to her at every point in time.

She admitted that Helen was her deceased husband’s concubine but never a shareholder of their company First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited, but a mere meddlesome interloper with no legally cognizable relationship with the company, therefore she had no reason whatsoever to act prejudicially or oppressively to the plaintiffs who as a matter of fact are strangers to the company.

She contended further that the Plaintiffs have no right to institute the action as they are not shareholders of the company. To demonstrate her good faith, she deposed in her affidavit that she caused her lawyers to write to Tomisin Ajayi to join in her children’s application to obtain Letters of Administration for their deceased father but Tomisin replied through her lawyer that she did not want to have anything to do with her and her children.

She contended that the plaintiffs are on a mission rooted in corporate robbery sought to be carried out in the garment of the law and that the instant suit, together with the application for injunction, is frivolous, vexatious and without any basis. Consequently, in the interest of justice, she contended that the reliefs sought by Helen Prest in the originating motion for 50% of her husband’s estate, should be refused.

The matter has not been given a new date.

Source: Vanguard

68 / 100 SEO Score

Judiciary

Aisha Achimugu Floors EFCC as Appeal Court Rejects SC Bid to Freeze Accounts

Published

on

By

The Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State has dealt another significant blow to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in its protracted legal battle with prominent businesswoman, Aisha Achimugu, dismissing the commission’s application for leave to challenge an earlier appellate judgment at the Supreme Court.
The ruling, delivered yesterday, October 22, 2026, represents another important judicial victory for Achimugu, whose prolonged confrontation with the anti-graft agency has involved investigations, asset seizures, the freezing of corporate and personal bank accounts, and several court proceedings.
In dismissing the EFCC application, the appellate court held that the commission had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify granting the permission sought.
According to an excerpt of the ruling, the court declared that the commission’s motion for leave to appeal its earlier judgment to the Supreme Court “lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.”
The decision leaves undisturbed, for now, the substantive judgment delivered by the same appellate court on July 22, 2026, which discharged an interim order freezing her bank accounts linked to Achimugu and corporate entities associated with her.
It also constitutes a fresh procedural setback for the EFCC in its efforts to sustain the restrictions earlier imposed on the businesswoman’s financial operations.
The latest development is particularly significant because the earlier Court of Appeal judgment had raised fundamental questions about the manner in which investigating agencies deploy interim freezing orders and the limits of their statutory powers in relation to private individuals and corporate organisations.
In that judgment, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche unanimously vacated the freezing order initially granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The court held that allowing an interim ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and a subversion of the rule of law.
The appellate court reasoned that such orders were intended as temporary measures to preserve disputed funds pending the hearing and determination of substantive applications, rather than indefinite instruments for restricting access to bank accounts.
The judgment followed a legal dispute arising from an application by the EFCC before Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, seeking to freeze the accounts linked to Achimugu and companies associated with her.
The application was granted on April 10, 2025, with affected banks directed to prevent outward transactions on the accounts.
However, Achimugu subsequently challenged the order, arguing that the continued restrictions constituted an abuse of judicial process.
The dispute took another dimension when the businesswoman raised concerns over the movement of N1.8 billion from a SunTrust Bank account to a Central Bank of Nigeria/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order remained in force.
In a ruling delivered on August 27, 2025, Justice Adamu held that the transfer was unlawful and directed its reversal.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal, questioning, among other issues, the jurisdiction of the trial court to deliver its ruling during the judicial vacation, an alleged denial of fair hearing, and the evaluation of evidence relating to the bank accounts.
In its July 22 judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the commission’s arguments concerning jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that the delivery of a reserved ruling during judicial vacation did not invalidate the proceedings.
The appellate court, however, agreed with the EFCC on the separate issue involving the N1.8 billion transfer, finding that the evidence before the lower court did not sufficiently establish that the money originated from an account covered by the April 10 freezing order.
Consequently, it set aside the order directing the reversal of the N1.8 billion, while expressly clarifying that its decision did not validate the legality of the EFCC directive transferring the funds.
Notwithstanding that limited finding in favour of the commission, the appellate court discharged the freezing order in its entirety, ruling that the prolonged restriction could no longer be justified as an interim measure.
The court’s conclusion was unequivocal: the ex parte order restricting the accounts of Achimugu and the affected corporate entities was discharged and vacated.
Yesterday’s refusal to grant the EFCC leave to challenge that judgment at the Supreme Court has now reinforced Achimugu’s position in the particular dispute over her accounts.
For Achimugu, the decision is an important development in a legal battle she has consistently maintained was characterised by excessive enforcement measures and disregard for her constitutional rights.
The founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited and Group Managing Director of Felak Concept Group has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and questioned the commission’s handling of investigations into her business activities.
In a public statement in July, she accused the EFCC of subjecting her to intimidation, reputational damage and prolonged disruption of her legitimate business interests.
She maintained that investigations and enforcement measures against her had adversely affected substantial investments, business relationships and the operations of companies built over several years.
The businesswoman also raised concerns about what she considered a sustained trial by media, insisting that allegations against any individual must be established through proper judicial processes rather than public accusations.

adron lemon friday

42 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Judiciary

COURT HANDS UBA MAJOR VICTORY IN LANDMARK N156BN DEBT RECOVERY JUDGEMENT AGAINST THE VASWANI BROTHERS AND STALLION GROUP

Published

on

By

United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc has won a court ruling in its three-year effort to recover money it says Stallion Group owes. The Federal High Court upheld the bank’s receiver, its mortgage security and the liability of the guarantors.

adron lemon friday

Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, resolved every issue in UBA’s favour and granted all the reliefs sought, MoneyCentral’s reports according to the judgement heard in Court.

The court confirmed Romeo Ese Michael as receiver-manager, with the right to take possession of the mortgaged property and seek protective orders.

It also barred the defendants from diverting payments owed to them by government agencies, thereby reinforcing the Bank’s ability to protect its recovery interests.

The court held that the defendants did not dispute owing money, only the amount, and that a reconciliation of accounts did not cancel the debt.

The Court also dismissed objections raised by the 12th Defendant (Barbedos Ventures Limited), holding that it had failed to establish any proprietary rights over the mortgaged property. Consequently, its consent was not required for the creation of the mortgage, and its objections were rejected.

When UBA filed the suit in October 2023, it claimed N156.03 billion, as being owed. Stallion has called the claim “entirely false,” however, the court’s written judgment and Stallion’s response to the ruling were not immediately available.

The case began when Justice Akintayo Aluko granted UBA orders to take over assets of Stallion Nigeria Ltd. and its affiliates in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Kano, and to freeze their funds across Nigerian banks. Stallion’s attempts to lift those orders failed in December 2023. The defendants include Von Automobile Nigeria, Stallion Motors, The Honda Place and director Sunil Vaswani.

The ruling strengthens a principle Nigerian lenders rely on: arguing over how much is owed does not by itself stop a creditor from enforcing its security. UBA is using the same receiver to pursue N61.45 billion linked to Western Metal Products Co.

The decision represents a comprehensive victory for UBA, with the Court resolving all issues in the Bank’s favour and granting all the reliefs sought.

The ruling is particularly significant for the enforcement of creditors’ rights in Nigeria, underscoring the legal validity of properly constituted security arrangements and the authority of duly appointed receivers to enforce creditors’ interests.

The judgment marks a major milestone in UBA’s efforts to recover its exposure to Stallion Group and safeguard the interests of the Bank and its stakeholders.

The key highlights of the judgment are as follows:
The Federal High Court Ikoyi affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Judgement was delivered by Justice Daniel Osiagor of Court 6 of Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos
The Defendants did not dispute their indebtedness, only the amount owed.
The guarantors were held liable.
The appointment of the Receiver/Manager was upheld as valid.
The Receiver/Manager’s right to take possession of the mortgaged property was affirmed.
The Receiver/Manager was held to be entitled to seek protective orders.
The Court held that the reconciliation exercise did not negate the indebtedness.
The objection of the 12th Defendant was dismissed, as it failed to establish any proprietary rights over the mortgaged property. Its consent was therefore not required for the mortgage.
The Defendants were restrained from diverting receivables due to them from government agencies.

41 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Prosecute Okowa, Yahaya Bello Now Over Alleged Corruption, HURIWA Tells EFCC

Published

on

By

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria, (HURIWA), has called on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC), to bring its investigations involving former Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa and former Kogi State Governor Yahaya Bello to a clear and lawful conclusion, warning political parties against fielding candidates whose unresolved corruption cases raise serious questions about public

adron lemon friday

The call was contained in a press statement signed by Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, National Coordinator of HURIWA, on the 9th of September, 2026.

According to the association, an opinion poll it conducted across Nigeria involving more than 6,000 respondents indicated overwhelming public disapproval of parties fielding politicians with unresolved corruption allegations.

HURIWA said 99 per cent of respondents condemned the practice, with particular criticism directed at the ruling All Progressives Congress, (APC), over its reported decision to field Okowa for a senatorial contest in Delta North.

The association said respondents in Delta North questioned why the party would reportedly choose the former governor instead of the incumbent senator, Prince Ned Nwoko, and demanded that EFCC clarify status of its investigation into Okowa.

HURIWA said the EFCC must explain status of its investigation into Okowa, who was arrested and detained in November 2024 over allegations concerning management of funds received during his eight-year tenure as Delta State governor.

The group recalled that reports at the time quoted EFCC saying:
“Okowa was at our Port Harcourt office following an invitation from the investigators probing the allegations against him. He was then arrested.”

HURIWA noted that the Punch also reported the source as saying:
“The commission is investigating him regarding the N1.3 trillion 13% derivation fund from the federation account between 2015 and 2023.”

The organisation said allegations reported at the time also included questions about funds allegedly used to acquire shares in a floating liquefied natural gas project and other investments.

HURIWA stressed that these were allegations under investigation and not proof of guilt. It noted that Okowa subsequently denied wrongdoing, with his aide maintaining that EFCC had not established a case against him.

The association added that the former governor should be entitled to due process, just as Nigerians deserved transparency about the investigation and a clear explanation of whether evidence warranted prosecution.
“Where investigators have sufficient evidence to prosecute, the EFCC should proceed without undue delay. Where the evidence is insufficient, the commission should equally clarify the position rather than leave the matter indefinitely unresolved,” HURIWA said.

Bello Case Raises Similar Questions On Accountability

The association said respondents in Kogi State expressed similar concerns about unresolved allegations involving former Governor Yahaya Bello, who has faced EFCC allegations concerning alleged diversion of public funds during his tenure.

HURIWA said reported scale of allegations made it imperative for anti-graft agency to pursue matter transparently and through courts. It emphasised that neither accusation nor investigation should be treated as conviction, however political office should not become shield against lawful investigation or prosecution.

APC, INEC And EFCC Must Address Public Concerns — HURIWA

HURIWA said its reported poll reflected public frustration with what respondents perceived as gap between anti-corruption rhetoric and political choices made by parties seeking public office.

It urged APC to explain rationale behind its reported senatorial choice in Delta North and called on all political parties to adopt transparent candidate-selection standards.

The association also urged the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to apply electoral law impartially, noting that eligibility questions must be determined by relevant constitutional and statutory provisions rather than public allegations alone.

HURIWA called on EFCC to provide update on status of Okowa investigation and pursue any prosecution justified by evidence, and to ensure Bello case also proceeds in accordance with law.

“Nigerians should not have to choose between respect for the presumption of innocence and the demand for accountability from public officials,” HURIWA said.

It maintained that both principles must be upheld: no individual should be declared guilty without due process, and no politically influential person should be insulated from investigation because of party affiliation or electoral ambition.

47 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Trending News