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

Malabu Case: EFCC Debunks Allegations of Bribery of Its Official, Mulls Appeal

Published

on

By

 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has debunked as false, news making the rounds that one of its prosecutors was offered a bribe over the Malabu OPL 245 fraud case leading to the dismissal of the charges against a former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Bello Adoke and others by a Federal Capital Territory High Court.
In statement issued on Friday on its official website and verified social media handles, the anti-corruption agency disclosed that it has commenced a review of developments around the Malabu OPL 245 fraud case, including the dismissal of the charges against Bello Adoke and others by the Court in Abuja.
The review, the EFCC hinted, will entail exploration of the option of appeal and possible change of counsel in view of the Commission’s dissatisfaction with the handling of the case by Offem Uket.
Speaking on the alleged bribing of its official, the EFCC says, its intention to review or appeal the case “has no nexus whatsoever to the spew of speculations imputing compromise by parties to the charge, currently making the rounds in some sections of the media.” It will be recalled that after the decision of the Abuja High Court upholding the no case submission of the defendants in the criminal case, a certain online news outfit had spewed the narrative suggesting that the EFCC accused its prosecutor of compromise by prominent lawyers connected to the case.
In denying the narrative of compromise, the anti-corruption agency further said, the, “EFCC is not obliged to embrace such narratives as it neither accused any of the parties of any unsavoury conduct nor made any conclusive statements about any investigation on the matter.”
The agency also dubbed allegations of compromise as “effusions of mischief makers” and urged the general public to await its next course of actions

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Breach of Contract: Tunji Afolayan gives Kunle Afolayan a seven day ultimatum

Published

on

By

Tunji Afolayan, an award winning Art Director through his legal representatives, Osifowora & Co. has berated the Managing Director of KAP Productions Limited, Kunle Afolayan over what he termed a “breach of contractual terms”.

In the letter signed by the firm’s lead counsel, Olatubosun Osifowora, Tunji accused Mr Kunle Afolayan of making a deliberate attempt to undermine his creative input and relevance on the movie, ‘Ijogbon’.

The letter to KAP Productions and Netflix stated that Mr Tunji was contracted by one Mr. Segun Akintunde, a Line Producer at KAP Productions Limited, to work as Art Director for the movie ‘ljogbon’. His deliverables, and remuneration as Art Director, were well spelt out in the contract. The letter noted that the contract was signed on January 11, 2023 between Mr Tunji and KAP’s Production Executive/Representative in the presence of Kunle Afolayan.
 “Our client stated also that the executed copies of the contractual documents were kept by the management of KAP Productions Limited and his copy was never given to him to date after signing.Upon completion of the project ‘Ijogbon’, the movie was released on Netflix- a streaming platform, and to our Client’s consternation, there was an omission of his name and title as Art Director for the movie ‘Ijogbon’,” the letter reads.

The letter further stated that Mr. Kunle was instead credited as the Art Director for the Movie ‘Ijogbon’m While accusing the management of KAP Productions Limited of deliberately and consciously portraying Mr Tunji as ‘Set Designer’ instead of his role as the Art Director, which he was originally contracted.

“Our client is appalled at this grave omission and therefore regards this as a breach of contractual terms in the contract with KAP Productions Limited. This is further viewed and taken, as a deliberate attempt to undermine our client’s creative work and relevance for the movie titled ‘Ijogbon’.

“In view of the above, it is our client’s demand that his name and role for which he was contracted and worked, be restored and properly credited in the Movie ‘Ijogbon’ as the Art Director,” Osifowora wrote.

He further demanded, on behalf of Mr Tunji Afolayan, that the retraction be done within seven days of receipt of the correspondence before the next line of action is taken.

9 / 100
Continue Reading

Judiciary

Supreme Court Set to Hear PDP, App’s Motion for the Enforcement of its Judgement Disqualifying APC in 2019 Imo Guber Poll

Published

on

By

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Supreme Court will hear the motion of the Peoples Democratic Party and Action Peoples Party respectively which applied to the apex Court to give effect to its judgment delivered on December 20, 2019, disqualifying Uche Nwosu from the Imo governorship election on the ground of double nomination on Tuesday, October 31st, 2023.
The apex court had in a judgment delivered on December 20, 2019 found that Nwosu was nominated by both Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressives Congress (APC) and consequently nullified his nomination.
A political party is not capable of sponsoring two candidates for the same office in the same election.
This informed the decision of the PDP and APP to file different applications at the Supreme Court seeking that the PDP candidate, Hon. Emeka Ihedioha be declared the winner of the election since APC is precluded from sponsoring two candidates in the Imo State governorship election.
In an affidavit filed in support of the application which was deposed to by a legal practitioner, Adedamola Farokun, working in the Legal Department of the PDP, he averred thus: “The third Respondent/Applicant (PDP) is neither in any way seeking a review of the valid, subsisting and well considered judgment of this court delivered in this appeal nor seeking a review of the judgment of this court delivered on 14th January 2020 in SC/462/2019 but humbly seeking that this court give effect to its judgment delivered on 20th December,2019.
“That this court has the constitutional, inherent powers and jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought and give effects to its judgment.“That it is in the interest of justice for this court to exercise its wide discretionary powers in favour of granting this application as prayed.”
In the application, PDP is asking the court to declare that the governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodinma was not the candidate of the APC based on the court’s judgment that Nwosu was nominated by both the APC and the Action Alliance.
PDP is also asking the court for an order enforcing or otherwise directing the enforcement and or giving effect to the judgement of the court in the case delivered on the 20th December 2019 wherein the court held that Nwosu was nominated by both APC and AA and consequently declared his nomination a nullity.
PDP is asking the Supreme Court to hold that “both the Action Alliance (AA) and the All Progressive Congress (APC) did not sponsor and/or field any candidate for the governorship election held in lmo State on 9th March, 2019 in view of the double nomination of the Appellant/Respondent by the two political parties aforesaid, and his subsequent disqualification as their gubernatorial candidate, as found by this honourable court in the judgment delivered on 20th December, 2019.”
The party asked the court for an order sequel to the above that Senator Hope Uzodinma was not a candidate by himself or of any party at the Imo State Governorship election held on 9th March, 2019.
PDP also asked the court for an order directing the Independent National Electoral Commission to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Senator Hope Uzodinma.
It asked the court “for an order further directing the 4th respondent to issue a certificate of return to the gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant, Rt. Hon. Emeka Ehedioha in the lmo state Governorship election held on 9th March. 2019 as the duly elected governor of Imo state, having scored the second highest number of votes in the said election sequel to the judgment of this court in Appeal No SC/1462/2019 Hope Uzodinma & Anor vs Rt. Hon Emeka Ihedioha & Others delivered on 14th January, 2020.”
The party further sought an order sequel to the above, directing that the said gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant in the lmo state Governorship election held on the 9th March 2019 Rt. Hon. Emeka lhedioha be immediately sworn in as the governor of lmo State.
PDP stated the grounds for the application thus: “The court found that the Appellant/Respondent was nominated by both APC and AA as their gubernatorial candidate for the lmo state governorship election and conclusively held that he was disqualified by the provisions of S. 37 of the Electoral Act (as amended), for double nomination.
b. That after the said election, the governorship candidate of the 3d Respondent/Applicant Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, was returned by the 4th Respondent as the winners of the election and consequently sworn into office.
That subsequently, the return of the governorship candidate of the 3rd Respondent/Applicant was challenged up to this court by one Senator Hope Uzodinma who claimed to be the gubernatorial ‘candidate of the APC.’
That the Supreme Court in its judgement delivered on 14th January, 2020 held that it was the said Senator Hope Uzodinma and not Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha that scored the highest number of votes in the election and ought to be returned as the duly elected governor of lmo State.
That by the clear terms of the judgement in this appeal, neither the AA nor the APC fielded any candidate for the lmo state governorship election held on 9th March 2019 and as such the said Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been returned as the winner of the lmo State Governorship election as a candidate of the APC.
That APC could not have substituted the appellant with a view to further nominating the said Senator Hope Uzodinma as their candidate because that right was not available to the party under the Electoral Act.
That Senator Hope Uzodinma could not have been a candidate in the election as an independent candidate as such right is not available to him.
That the 3rd respondent Applicant, PDP, as the main beneficiary of the judgment ought to enjoy the fruits of the said judgement.
That Rt. Honourable Emeka lhedioha, who is the candidate nominated by the 3rd Respondent /Applicant, and who scored the second highest number of votes after Senator Hope Uzodinma, from the judgment of this court ought therefore to be issued a certificate of return by the 4th respondent and sworn in accordingly.
That it will advance the cause of justice to grant this application particularly as none of the parties will be prejudiced by its grant.

11 / 100
Continue Reading

Trending News