‎Helen Prest Appeals Judgment Recognising Adenike As Tosin Ajayi’s Sole Widow

‎‎Former beauty queen, Helen Prest-Ajayi and her daughter, Tomisin Ajayi have appealed the judgment of the Lagos high court which recognised Adenike Oluyemisi Ajayi as the sole lawful widow of the late Tosin Ajayi, founder of First Foundation Hospital.

‎In a notice of appeal dated June 18 and filed before the court of appeal in Lagos, the appellants asked the court to set aside the June 17 judgment delivered by Oluwatoyin Odusanya, judge of a Lagos high court.

‎The appellants argued that the trial court made a series of erroneous findings on Prest-Ajayi’s marital status, Tomisin’s legitimacy, the validity of evidence relied upon by the claimants, and the distribution of the deceased’s estate.

The dispute stems from a long-running legal battle over the estate of Ajayi, who died in April 2020.

‎Adenike and her children, Tomi Deru, Olumide Ajayi, Omolade Soetan, Mayowa Okeowo and Bisola Ajayi, had approached the Lagos high court in Suit No. ID/3364LM/21, seeking declarations that Adenike remained the only lawful wife of the deceased and was entitled to administer his estate.

‎In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, the Lagos High Court declared Adenike the sole lawful widow of the deceased, holding that her statutory marriage to Ajayi was never dissolved and that separation, regardless of duration, could not terminate a valid marriage.

‎The court also rejected Prest-Ajayi’s claim that she contracted a Kalabari customary marriage with the late medical practitioner and held that she failed to establish the existence of such a marriage.

‎The court also said even if the marriage had been proven, it would still be invalid, as evidence showed that Prest-Ajayi was still legally married to her ex-husband Davies.

‎Odusanya further ruled that Adenike was entitled to one-third of the deceased’s personal estate and was the only spouse entitled to apply for letters of administration over the estate.

‎But in the appeal, Prest-Ajayi and her daughter contended that the trial court wrongly described her as a “mistress” of the deceased despite what they described as an existing consent judgment delivered by another Lagos high court in January 2021.

‎According to the appellants, the earlier judgment in a separate suit had recognised Prest-Ajayi and Adenike as co-wives of the deceased, and the trial judge failed to consider the legal effect of that decision before reaching a contrary conclusion.

‎“The status of co-wives does not exclude either wife from being recognised as such,” the notice of appeal stated.

‎The appellants also challenged the court’s finding regarding Tomisin’s status, arguing that the judge wrongly concluded that she was born outside wedlock and was therefore a “love child” of Prest and the deceased.

‎They argued that Tomisin was born during what they described as a 25-year marital relationship between Prest and Ajayi and that documentary evidence, including a United Kingdom birth certificate, identified her parents as a couple.

‎Prest-Ajayi submitted that she had two other children with Ajayi, but Tomisin was the only surviving child. They further claimed that her status as a child of the deceased was never successfully challenged at trial.

‎Another major ground of the appeal concerns the statutory marriage relied upon by Adenike.

‎The appellants argued that the authenticity of the marriage certificate was disputed throughout the proceedings and that the claimants failed to produce evidence from the marriage registry to establish its validity.

‎They claimed that the registry had no official record of the marriage and that the trial court relied on a “photocopied” document without external verification.

‎Prest-Ajayi and her daughter further argued that the judge erred by granting reliefs that were neither sought nor canvassed by the parties.

‎Specifically, they challenged the court’s description of Prest-Ajayi as “a mistress, undocumented partner and the mother of his child”, arguing that the issue before the court was limited to entitlement to administer the estate and not a determination of her personal relationship with the deceased.

‎The appellants also faulted the trial court’s pronouncement on the ratio and quantum of distribution of the estate, arguing that the issue before the court was only to determine who could apply for letters of administration.

‎They contended that the ascertainment and distribution of shares in an estate are matters reserved for estate administrators and the probate registry after the grant of letters of administration.

‎In the notice of appeal, Prest-Ajayi and Tomisin asked the court to set aside the high court’s judgment, sustain the defence presented at trial and dismiss the suit filed by Adenike and her children.

‎The appellants also indicated that additional grounds of appeal may be filed after obtaining the certified true copy of the judgment.