Justice Oluwatoyin Odusanya of the Lagos State Excessive Court docket sitting in Ikeja has mounted June 2, 2026, to ship judgment within the high-profile dispute over the property of the late Dr. Tosin Ajayi, Managing Director of First Basis Medical Engineering Firm, who died intestate on April 26, 2020.
The courtroom adjourned for judgment after counsel to the events, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) for the defendants and Mr. Kunle Adegoke (SAN) for the claimants, adopted their ultimate written addresses.
The go well with, marked ID/3364LM/21, was instituted by Mrs. Adenike Oluyemisi Ajayi and her youngsters, Tomi Deru, Olumide Ajayi, Omolade Soetan, Mayowa Okeowo, and Bisola Ajayi—in opposition to Mrs. Helen Prest-Ajayi and her daughter, Tomisin Ajayi, over claims to inheritance rights and the administration of the deceased’s property.
In his submission, Owonikoko (SAN) challenged the muse of the claimants’ case, contending that they failed to determine the existence of any legitimate statutory marriage between the first claimant and the deceased, an important requirement for the reliefs being sought.
Central to the defence’s argument is the rejection of a purported marriage certificates relied upon by the claimants.
Owonikoko argued the doc lacks evidential worth, citing inconsistencies, lacking particulars, indicators of alteration, and the absence of correct certification.
The defendants additional faulted the claimants for failing to name any official from the wedding registry or produce unique information to authenticate the doc.
To strengthen their place, the defence instructed the courtroom that impartial searches performed on the Ijebu Ode Marriage Registry, the Federal Marriage Registry in Ikoyi, and the Ministry of Inside in Abuja yielded no document of any marriage between the first claimant and the deceased.
Official correspondences tendered as reveals, they mentioned, confirmed that the alleged marriage certificates doesn’t exist in any authorities archive.
They argued that beneath the Marriage Act and the Proof Act, strict proof is required to determine a statutory marriage, notably the place public paperwork are disputed, and that the claimants’ failure on this regard is deadly to their case.
Within the absence of such proof, the defendants submitted, the claimants can’t depend on statutory provisions governing inheritance.
The defence additionally challenged the credibility of the first claimant, pointing to what they described as materials contradictions in her testimony.
They argued that proof earlier than the courtroom reveals the deceased had been estranged from her for over 35 years previous to his demise and that they didn’t cohabit throughout that interval.
They argued that beneath cross-examination, the first claimant admitted to missing data of key points of the deceased’s life, together with his residence and the circumstances resulting in his sickness and demise, information the defence mentioned undermined her declare of a subsisting conjugal relationship.
The defendants maintained that the first defendant was the partner who lived with the deceased till his demise, having contracted a sound customary marriage beneath Kalabari native regulation and customized.
They argued that such a wedding confers rights to take part within the administration and distribution of the property alongside the deceased’s youngsters.
The defendants additionally framed the dispute as a probate matter in regards to the administration of an intestate property, reasonably than a matrimonial contest.
They submitted that the regulation prioritises people with confirmed helpful curiosity, notably a surviving partner and the deceased’s youngsters, within the grant of letters of administration.
They additional alleged that the first claimant had been intermeddling with and dissipating the property’s property earlier than any grant of administration was issued, arguing that such conduct renders her unsuitable to handle the property.
On the relevant regulation, the defence contended that the place no legitimate statutory marriage is established, the property should be ruled by customary regulation.
Describing the go well with as misconceived and missing in benefit, the defendants urged the courtroom to dismiss all of the reliefs sought, noting that declaratory reliefs should succeed on the energy of the claimant’s case, which they argued has clearly failed.
In submissions on factors, the defendants argued that the burden of proof rests totally on the claimants, noting that declaratory reliefs require concrete proof.
They additional highlighted that the claimants didn’t contest key paperwork and testimony confirming the first defendant’s Kalabari customary marriage to the late Dr. Ajayi, which occurred after her prior divorce.
In response, the claimants, by way of Adegoke (SAN), urged the courtroom to affirm the first claimant because the lawful spouse of the deceased, sustaining that there was no proof of any dissolution of their marriage earlier than his demise.
They described the alleged customary marriage between the deceased and the first defendant as a “phantom marriage,” arguing that it couldn’t stand in regulation for the reason that deceased was nonetheless married to the first claimant on the time it purportedly came about.
The claimants additional submitted that because the lawful surviving partner, the first claimant is entitled to inherit the deceased’s private chattels and a considerable portion of the property, whereas the remaining share must be distributed among the many youngsters.
They argued that the first claimant’s decades-long estrangement from the deceased doesn’t nullify the wedding, stating that separation with out formal dissolution beneath Nigerian regulation doesn’t terminate the authorized standing of a spouse.
The claimants additionally highlighted that the defence’s reliance on the alleged absence of official information can’t override the sworn testimony and proof confirming the subsistence of the wedding.
They urged the courtroom to carry that any purported customary union entered into by the first defendant was invalid and can’t confer inheritance rights or participation in property administration.
They additional requested the courtroom to grant all of the reliefs sought and declare that the first defendant has no authorized proper to take part within the administration or distribution of the property.
Wale Igbintade
Times Nigeria