A Customary Court in Ado-Ekiti has dissolved a three-year-old marriage between a man, Pastor Oni Muyiwa and Madam Alabi Adejoke over wife-battering and threats to life, Vanguard reports.
Muyiwa, a Pastor in one of the popular new-generation churches and a health worker is known to be a perennial divorcee who manipulates women’s wealth to his advantage.
Delivering his judgement, President of the Court, Mr. J.O Oyedele ordered that both parties go on their separate ways without disturbing each other.
“The Respondent is hereby restrained from going to the Petitioner’s house after he might have taken all his belongings out of the house.
“The custody of the only child of the association is hereby awarded to the Petitioner and the Respondent shall have access to the child.
“The Court hereby ordered that the Toyota Camry Car under the custody of the Respondent is to be collected immediately and same given to the Petitioner.
“The Court hereby declare that the house 3 bedroom flat being, lying and situating behind School of the Handicap belongs to the Petitioner absolutely.
“The Court hereby declared that the 2 plots of land being, lying and situated at Idolofin Community land belongs to the Petitioner and the family receipt is hereby ordered to be issued in the name of the Petitioner.”
Madam Ajejoke had approached the court through her counsel, Iyanu Olumuagun on 11th October 2022 seeking dissolution of the marriage, that the Respondent be ordered to leave her house, also that the Respondent return all her properties.
During cross-examination, it was discovered that the Respondent cannot be trusted and whose testimonies were full of lies.
“With all the answers given by the Respondent shows he is a liar and his evidence cannot be relied on: Why could the Respondent deny knowing a woman who gave birth to his first son known as Oni Samuel Okikiola? Why will he also deny knowing Modupe his first wife?” The Court said.
However, Defendant said the Petitioner did not have a car but he acquired the car while cohabiting with her.
Defendant informed the court that it was not true that it was only the Petitioner that is responsible for education and the welfare of the child.
