Paternity Dispute: Court fixes March 11 to rule on ex-Skye Bank Chair’s case

ABUJA– An Abuja Customary Court sitting at Dawaki has fixed March 11 to deliver ruling in a paternity dispute involving a former chairman of the defunct Skye Bank Plc, Mr. Tunde Ayeni.

The court adjourned for ruling after Ayeni, who is the petitioner, explained what led to the frosty relationship between him and his ex-mistress, Ms Adaobi Alagwu.

Ayeni, through his lawyer, Mr. Joseph Silas, told the court that his former lover resorted to blackmail, after he decided in October 2024, to discontinue a monthly allowance he had been giving her.

He further told the court that in addition to the financial support, he had placed Ms. Alagwu in a property worth N400million, at the Jabi District of Abuja, which he bought and placed her as a trustee.

However, he disclosed that after he got fed up with the relationship, he asked Ms Alagwu who is the respondent in the matter before the court, to vacate the property.

Ayeni’s counsel made the revelations at the resumed hearing on a case the former Skye Bank boss lodged before the court.

The petitioner and his estranged mistress have been embroiled in a dispute over the paternity of Alagwu’s daughter, who Ayeni denied as his child.

Determined to quash the paternity claim, Ayeni initiated a legal action before the court marked: FCT/CC/CV/DKDK, wherein he urged the court to take judicial notice that he is not the child’s father, insisting that no valid marriage existed between him and the respondent.

In her response, Ms. Alagwu insisted that a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test conducted at a laboratory in London, United Kingdom, with report reference number 0Z5167, showed a 99.9999997% probability that Mr. Ayeni is the biological father of her daughter.

In his suit, the petitioner disputed the DNA test results, alleging that it was manipulated.

Earlier when the matter was called up on Tuesday, counsel to the petitioner, Mr. Silas, noted that though the case was fixed for definite defence, he told the court that the respondent served him with a preliminary objection.

“The matter today is set for definite defence and we are ready to proceed. However, they served us with a notice of preliminary objection,” he submitted.

He explained that the respondent’s objection challenged the court’s jurisdiction to continue hearing on the matter.

“My Lord, the respondent’s objection is that this court does not have jurisdiction because the petitioner submitted his marriage certificate with his wife to the court. However, the respondent’s application is unfounded and misplaced,” Silas argued.

He contended that the court has jurisdiction to hear there case since it was established by law and the parties duly appeared before it.

“Section 14, subsection 2 of the Customary Court Act 2007 clearly recognizes that parties who submit themselves to this court confer jurisdiction on the court.”

“The matter before this court is not about determining the statutory marriage between the petitioner and his wife but about declaring that no marriage exists between the petitioner and the respondent following the return of a dowry paid out of ignorance of the respondent’s native law and custom.”

He told the court that the dowry had been refunded after the petitioner demanded it back, insisting that the payment was never intended to establish a marriage.

Silas urged the court to pronounce that the parties were not married, alleging that Ms. Alagwu was using the assumption of marriage to blackmail the petitioner.

“This court is invited to make a pronouncement on the respondent’s false belief that she is married to the petitioner.

“This belief has enabled her to continue blackmailing him after he discovered the child she claimed was his was not and discontinued her N5 million monthly allowance in October 2024.

“He has also asked her to vacate the petitioners N400 million property in Jabi that she occupies as a trustee,” petitioner’s counsel added.

In his response, the respondent’s lawyer, T.G. Okechukwu, argued that the court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, even as he applied for the dismissal of the case.

“My Lord, the respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection dated February 26, 2025, pursuant to the rules of this honorable court.

“We urge the court to dismiss this suit on the grounds that it no longer has jurisdiction to hear it,” Okechukwu submitted.

After it had listened to both sides, a three-member panel of the court led by Justice Adlin Achoru, adjourned the matter for ruling.