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

Judiciary

NJC sets up panel to investigate allegations against Osun Chief Judge

Published

on

By

 

 

The National Judicial Council, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has reportedly constituted a committee to investigate multiple allegations against Osun State Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Adepele Ojo.

In its 107th meeting on November 13 and 14, 2024, the NJC sanctioned five judicial officers for misconduct and recommended the formation of a committee to probe the various complaints against Justice Ojo.

At the heart of the allegations are claims that Justice Ojo has repeatedly failed to adhere to legal and ethical standards expected of her position.

A petition submitted to the NJC by the Concerned Citizens of Nigeria, Osun State Chapter, further outlined the gravity of the allegations.

The petition claims that Justice Ojo’s actions have violated both the spirit and the letter of the law. The group accuses her of gross abuse of office, breaches of professional ethics, and a blatant disregard for the rule of law, which they argue has led to a loss of public trust in the judiciary.

It would be recalled that Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke had suspended Justice Ojo following a resolution by the State House of Assembly.

The resolution cited serious allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, corruption, and failure to uphold the rule of law.

Some of the allegations against Justice Ojo include, taking personal vengeance against judiciary staff, she dismissed several staff members who had shown courage in reporting her actions, creating a climate of fear and retaliation within the judiciary.

46 / 100
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Oil Magnate, Akinduro Sues EFCC, Demands N5b For Unlawfully Declaring Him Wanted

Published

on

By

Dr. Henry Mobolaji Akinduro, Chairman/CEO of Global Signature Hotel and Total Grace Group Limited, has filed a N5 billion lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly declaring him wanted unlawfully.
In the suit filed on Wednesday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, Akinduro submitted that the EFCC declared him wanted without any form of judicial intervention, recourse to constitutional safeguards or order of court.
The EFCC on Friday, 11 October, 2024 at about 7.20pm on its official twitter handle, also known as ‘X’ declared the oil magnate ‘Wanted’. The businessman is praying the court to order the EFCC to remove his name from the wanted list published on the commission’s official website or any other related platform including Twitter (X).
Akinduro is seeking N5 billion as “general damages”.
On Monday 14 October, 2024, the businessman, via his counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN had petitioned the Executive Chairman of the EFCC over the unconstitutional violation of his fundamental human rights to personal liberty and human dignity by the publication of his name on the list of wanted persons on the EFCC’s website.
Ojo averred in the petition that at all times preceding the said publication there was no order of any Court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the said publication and no charge had been preferred against our Client before any Court of law.
According to Akinduro’s Lawyer, the Commission had allegedly made the said illegal or unlawful publication declaring him wanted upon the prompting or instigation of one Mr. Femi Olushakin who had earlier written a petition against the oil magnate in respect of a N240 million contractual dispute between them —Messrs Olushakin and Akinduro.
He affirmed that disputes had arisen from the investment agreement entered into between the two men leading to Olushakin petitioning EFCC.
“Our Client (Akinduro) was invited by the Commission on 4th June, 2024 and he immediately responded via letter dated 5th June, 2024 notifying the Commission of his unavailability due to medical reasons. In the said letter, it was stated therein that our Client was out of the Country receiving medical attention. He subsequently provided assurances that he would be present at the Commission as soon as he was medically cleared to travel. It is pertinent at this juncture to chronicle the genesis of the subject matter which led to the declaration of our Client Wanted by the Commission,” Ojo stated.
The Counsel disclosed that there was a business transaction between Akinduro and Olushakin which was backed by a viable collateral which included Akinduro’s Global Signature Hotel worth N500 million, three (3) 60-Seater Yutong buses valued at over N240 million and a Toyota 4Runner SUV.
Ojo claimed that Olushakin has sold the three 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently drives around the city in the Toyota 4Runner SUV which were used as collateral by Akinduro.
“It is clear from the above that this is a purely civil business transaction with no element of criminality embedded in it. Mr. Femi Olushakin maliciously petitioned the Commission after selling the 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently using the Toyota 4runner SUV for his personal use,” he stated.
The Senior Lawyer added that despite Akinduro’s medical condition overseas, he has maintained close communication with the Commission.
“Our Client regularly sends his Legal Officer to the Commission, affirming his willingness and desire to appear before the Commission upon due confirmation of his being fit to travel by his doctors. There was no further request by the Commission inviting our Client before the unlawful publication.
“It is to be further noted that on 11 October, 2024, our Client’s Legal Officer was physically present at the office of the Commission around noon to submit a correspondence to the Commission and he also reassured the Operatives of the Commission of our Client’s desire and willingness to cooperate with the investigation by the Commission upon his arrival in Nigeria.
“It is regrettable that despite the repeated reassurances of our Client to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in Nigeria, the Commission proceeded to declare our Client ‘Wanted’ later that same day at about 7.20pm without an order of Court and in the absence of a valid charge in a Court of law.
“The Commission published our Client’s name and photograph depicting our Client as a fugitive from the law and branded him “WANTED” without any evidence of evading investigation. This action of the Commission has not only defamed our Client but also violated our Client’s right to freedom of movement without the order of the Courts.
“The Commission has also by the unlawful publication subjected our Client to public humiliation and ridicule thus causing our Client loss of personal and business relationships as well as reputational damage. It is our instruction that since the publication, our Client has been inundated with calls, Whatsapp messages from his business associates all over the world who had read the post expressing their disgust and dismay at the defamatory publication, and the said publication has also caused our Client emotional trauma and distress.”
Akinduro, through his lawyer, said he considered it imperatively necessary to put the records straight with a view to showing that the fraud allegations are trumped-up allegations aimed at causing incalculable damage to his hard earned but richly deserved reputation.
“It is pertinent to state that the petition against Dr. Henry Akinduro was an ignoble attempt to criminalize purely contractual disputes that had arisen from the investment agreement between Dr. Henry Akinduro and the Petitioner, Mr. Femi Olushakin,” he said.
Ojo stated that the commercial or contractual disputes had earlier been referred to the competent Court by the parties before Olushakin resorted to lodging the fraud allegations against the oil magnate for reasons best known to him.
“Indeed, with knowledge of this, Mr. Femi Olushakin through his
lawyers, as part of the originating processes filed towards the resolution of the dispute between the parties
in court, the Petitioner (the Defendant in the Civil Suit No I/87512024 at the State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division, Oyo State of Nigeria) has filed a Counterclaim. Some of the reliefs set out in the Counter Claims are as follows:
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N250 million Naira only to the Counter Claimant, sum of which was invested by the Counter Claimant into the business of the Defendants to the Counter Claim (Dr. Henry Akinduro and co)
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N205,325,000 to the Counter Claimant being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimants by the Defendant to the Counter Claimants.
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N52.5 million to the Counter Claimant (Mr. Femi Olushakin) being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimant by the Defendants to the Counter Claim on the investment of N100 million only).
– An Order directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N10 million only) to the Counter Claimant being the shortfall or deficit.
“One would have expected that Olushakin would allow the Court to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties since the matter is already sub-judice. Our client has taken further legal actions towards establishing with compelling finality that the fraud allegations made against him are unfounded, groundless, baseless and ill-motivated. It is pertinent to stress that our client is presumed innocent by constitutional fiat until the contrary is proved or established. Our Client wishes to restate his confidence in the judicial process which he believes will vindicate him,” Akinduro’s lawyer submitted.

 

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Restrains BEDC From Disconnecting Teaching Hospital Electricity

Published

on

By

 

 

An Ondo State High Court sitting in Akure has restrained Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) from disconnecting the electricity at the Ondo State-owned University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UNIMEDTH), Ondo, over alleged indebtedness.
In an order granted ex-parte, the court presided by Justice B J Akinwumi barred the distribution company from tampering with the cable that supplied electricity to the Teaching Hospital
The Teaching Hospital through its counsel, Iyiola Afolabi, had dragged the company to court over the fear of disconnection of its electricity owing to alleged indebtedness.
The institution had prayed for “An Order of interim injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants, privies staff or officers or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting or threatening to disconnect electricity supply to the claimant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.”
It also prayed for further order as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The Motion was brought under order 20 Rule 1 (1) and (2), Rule 15 of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.
Justice Akinwumi in his order after reading the affidavit of Alo, Damilola Olatubosun granted the prayers of the applicant/ complaint.
The court restrained BEDC, its agents, servants, privies, staff officers, or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Claimant/Applicant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.
Due to the ongoing Courts vacation, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the motion on notice

45 / 100
Continue Reading

Trending News