Court Fixes June 2 for Judgment in Late Dr. Tosin Ajayi’s Estate Dispute

• To rule on validity of statutory/customary marriages

Wale Igbintade

Justice Oluwatoyin Odusanya of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has fixed June 2, 2026, to deliver judgment in the high-profile dispute over the estate of the late Dr. Tosin Ajayi, Managing Director of First Foundation Medical Engineering Company, who died intestate on April 26, 2020.

The court adjourned for judgment after counsel to the parties, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN) for the defendants and Mr. Kunle Adegoke (SAN) for the claimants, adopted their final written addresses.

The suit, marked ID/3364LM/21, was instituted by Mrs. Adenike Oluyemisi Ajayi and her children, Tomi Deru, Olumide Ajayi, Omolade Soetan, Mayowa Okeowo, and Bisola Ajayi—against Mrs. Helen Prest-Ajayi and her daughter, Tomisin Ajayi, over claims to inheritance rights and the administration of the deceased’s estate.

In his submission, Owonikoko (SAN) challenged the foundation of the claimants’ case, contending that they failed to establish the existence of any valid statutory marriage between the 1st claimant and the deceased, an essential requirement for the reliefs being sought.

Central to the defence’s argument is the rejection of a purported marriage certificate relied upon by the claimants.

Owonikoko argued the document lacks evidential value, citing inconsistencies, missing details, signs of alteration, and the absence of proper certification.

The defendants further faulted the claimants for failing to call any official from the marriage registry or produce original records to authenticate the document.

To reinforce their position, the defence told the court that independent searches conducted at the Ijebu Ode Marriage Registry, the Federal Marriage Registry in Ikoyi, and the Ministry of Interior in Abuja yielded no record of any marriage between the 1st claimant and the deceased.

Official correspondences tendered as exhibits, they said, confirmed that the alleged marriage certificate does not exist in any government archive.

They argued that under the Marriage Act and the Evidence Act, strict proof is required to establish a statutory marriage, particularly where public documents are disputed, and that the claimants’ failure in this regard is fatal to their case.

In the absence of such proof, the defendants submitted, the claimants cannot rely on statutory provisions governing inheritance.

The defence also challenged the credibility of the 1st claimant, pointing to what they described as material contradictions in her testimony.

They argued that evidence before the court shows the deceased had been estranged from her for over 35 years prior to his death and that they did not cohabit during that period.

They argued that under cross-examination, the 1st claimant admitted to lacking knowledge of key aspects of the deceased’s life, including his residence and the circumstances leading to his illness and death, facts the defence said undermined her claim of a subsisting marital relationship.

The defendants maintained that the 1st defendant was the spouse who lived with the deceased until his death, having contracted a valid customary marriage under Kalabari native law and custom.

They argued that such a marriage confers rights to participate in the administration and distribution of the estate alongside the deceased’s children.

The defendants also framed the dispute as a probate matter concerning the administration of an intestate estate, rather than a matrimonial contest.

They submitted that the law prioritises individuals with proven beneficial interest, particularly a surviving spouse and the deceased’s children, in the grant of letters of administration.

They further alleged that the 1st claimant had been intermeddling with and dissipating the estate’s assets before any grant of administration was issued, arguing that such conduct renders her unsuitable to manage the estate.

On the applicable law, the defence contended that where no valid statutory marriage is established, the estate must be governed by customary law.

Describing the suit as misconceived and lacking in merit, the defendants urged the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought, noting that declaratory reliefs must succeed on the strength of the claimant’s case, which they argued has clearly failed.

In submissions on points, the defendants argued that the burden of proof rests entirely on the claimants, noting that declaratory reliefs require concrete evidence.

They further highlighted that the claimants failed to contest key documents and testimony confirming the 1st defendant’s Kalabari customary marriage to the late Dr. Ajayi, which occurred after her prior divorce.

In response, the claimants, through Adegoke (SAN), urged the court to affirm the 1st claimant as the lawful wife of the deceased, maintaining that there was no evidence of any dissolution of their marriage before his death.

They described the alleged customary marriage between the deceased and the 1st defendant as a “phantom marriage,” arguing that it could not stand in law since the deceased was still married to the 1st claimant at the time it purportedly took place.

The claimants further submitted that as the lawful surviving spouse, the 1st claimant is entitled to inherit the deceased’s personal chattels and a substantial portion of the estate, while the remaining share should be distributed among the children.

They argued that the 1st claimant’s decades-long estrangement from the deceased does not nullify the marriage, pointing out that separation without formal dissolution under Nigerian law does not terminate the legal status of a wife.

The claimants also highlighted that the defence’s reliance on the alleged absence of official records cannot override the sworn testimony and evidence confirming the subsistence of the marriage.

They urged the court to hold that any purported customary union entered into by the 1st defendant was invalid and cannot confer inheritance rights or participation in estate administration.

They further asked the court to grant all the reliefs sought and declare that the 1st defendant has no legal right to participate in the administration or distribution of the estate.