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.

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

Oceangate Engineering to appeal court’s ruling on asset forfeiture

Published

on

By

Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Limited has announced plans to appeal a recent ruling of the Federal High Court ordering the forfeiture of certain assets.

The company’s Secretary, Nnenna Onyeaso, disclosed this in a statement on Thursday, maintaining that neither the firm nor its leadership was found guilty of any wrongdoing.

Onyeaso said the company views the ruling as a civil asset forfeiture order based on suspicion rather than proof, she emphasise  that the judgment did not establish any criminal liability against the organisation.

She added that the firm has instructed its legal team to file an appeal, expressing confidence in the judicial process and optimism that a comprehensive review of the case will yield a favourable outcome.

“To be clear, this ruling is a civil asset forfeiture order with no finding of wrongdoing against Oceangate or its leadership.

“The court’s decision rested on a legal standard of suspicion, not proof, and it is one we intend to pursue fully through the appeals process,” she said in a statement.

The firm secretary also said that Oceangate has reiterated its belief in the rule of law, noting that the appellate system exists to address such outcomes.

She added that the company remained confident that the facts of the case will ultimately affirm its integrity and business practices.

Onyeaso said that the firm also emphasised that its operations remained unaffected, stating that it continues to provide employment for many Nigerians while contributing to the country’s energy sector and broader economy.

“We have always believed in the ability of the judicial process, and that belief has not wavered,” she added.

She noted that Oceangate further expressed appreciation to its employees, partners, and clients for their continued support amid the development, assuring stakeholders of its commitment to transparency and accountability.

The Secretary said that the company reaffirmed its confidence in Nigeria as a viable destination for investment, describing the country as a land of equity, growth, and opportunity.

“We remain committed to the continued growth of our business and the communities we serve as we are optimistic that justice will prevail at the end of the legal process.

43 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

News

PDP Criticises Kwara Governor Over Deadly Bandit Attack

Published

on

PDP criticises Kwara Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq over deadly bandit attack in Woro and Nuku, calling response insufficient

(more…)

67 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Asked To Restrain FG From Interfering with NAFDAC Enforcement of Sachet Alcohol Ban

Published

on

By

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to issue injunctive orders restraining the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) from further extending the moratorium on the prohibition of the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.

The Rights Group also asked for order restraining them from interfering with the statutory powers of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) to enforce the ban.

Specifically, SERAP is seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, privies, and all persons or authorities acting through them from extending any moratorium on the sachet alcohol ban.

The organisation is also asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from directing, preventing, blocking, or stopping NAFDAC from enforcing the prohibition, in line with its statutory functions under Sections 5 and 30(c) of the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, and the Memorandum of Resolution executed on 19 December 2018.

In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2568/25, SERAP is asking the court to compel the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, through its supervisory authority, to immediately direct NAFDAC to fully enforce the existing nationwide ban on the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol in sachet format.

The defendants in the case are the Minister of Health and Social Welfare and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The group argues that the continued delay by the relevant federal authorities in enforcing the ban amounts to a failure to implement long-standing public health regulations designed to curb alcohol abuse, protect public safety, and safeguard citizens’ well-being.

The suit was filed on SERAP’s behalf by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, alongside a team of lawyers from Tayo Oyetibo LP.

In an originating summons dated 15 December 2025, SERAP contends that the ongoing circulation of sachet alcohol violates the National Health Act, 2014, the NAFDAC Act, the Spirits Drink Regulation, 2021, and the Memorandum of Resolution of 19 December 2018, which collectively mandate a nationwide ban on sachet alcohol.

SERAP is asking the court to determine whether the Minister of Health can lawfully refuse or fail to enforce the prohibition, and whether any federal authority has the power to interfere with or delay NAFDAC’s statutory duty to enforce the ban.

The organisation also wants the court to decide whether, given the acknowledged dangers of alcohol abuse, judicial intervention is required in the interest of public health, public safety, and public order.

According to SERAP, sachet alcohol, often cheap, highly potent, and widely accessible, has been linked to rising cases of alcohol abuse, particularly among young people and low-income communities. It argues that the 2018 Memorandum of Resolution and subsequent regulations were adopted precisely to address these risks.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the sachet alcohol ban is a valid regulation under the NAFDAC Act; that the Minister of Health has no legal authority to grant or extend any moratorium on its enforcement; and that it is unlawful for any federal authority to interfere with NAFDAC’s enforcement responsibilities.

SERAP is also asking the court to affirm that the defendants have a duty to ensure the full implementation of the ban nationwide.

The legal action follows recent unverified social media news suggesting there is an attempt to further postpone the long overdue enforcement of the ban championed by a few operstors bent on continued violation of the regulation, despite earlier regulatory directive and broad industry commitments. The issue has gained renewed attention after the Senate in full plenary session passed a unanimous resolution setting a December 2025 deadline for full enforcement of the ban, citing public health concerns.

SERAP insists that continued delays undermine Nigeria’s health laws and expose citizens to preventable harm, urging the relevant authorities to prioritise public interest over selfish profit objectives of a few non-compliant businessmen.

The court is expected to fix a hearing date once the defendants enter their appearance.

49 / 100 SEO Score
Continue Reading

Trending News