Mrs. Oluwayemisi Ajayi, the only widow of a late businessman and philanthropist, Dr. Tosin Ajayi, has revealed that the relationship that existed between her deceased husband and a former Miss Nigeria, Helen Prest, wa nothing but adulterated one.
The widow in a 27-paragraph counter affidavit filed against the suit instituted by Helen Prest, detailed how the ex beauty queen allegedly engaged her late husband in extra-marital affairs for many years.
The suit which is pending before the Lagos’ Federal High Court, Lagos, was filed on July 23, 2021, and has First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited (FFMECL); Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC); Mrs Oluwayemisi Ajayi; and Mr Patrick Abak, a lawyer as first to fourth respondents.
While Helen Prest was listed as second plaintiff, her daughter Tomisin Ajayi, was listed as first plaintiff.
The legal battle is centered on who should be in control of First Foundation Medical Engineering Company Limited and some certain properties owned by the company.
In the 71 paragraph affidavit in support of the suit against the respondents and deposed to by Helen Prest’s daughter (first plaintiff), she averred that her late dad married to Oluwayemisi and they had children. But they were separated for 35 years before her father’s demise.
Tomisin claimed that in the course of the separation between her late dad and Oluwayemisi, the late Ajayi and her mother, Helen Prest married and had her.
However, in a counter affidavit deposed to by the widow and filed on September 13, 2021, she averred that she is aware that the first plaintiff (Tomisin) presents herself as the love child of an adulterous relationship between her deceased husband, Dr Ajayi, and his adulteress, Helen Prest.
The deponent stated that although she was not in a position to confirm if Tomisin Ajayi is a child of her late husband, because the late Ajayi did not introduce her to the family in his lifetime, but she is ready to accept the first plaintiff in good faith as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of her deceased husband.
On ownership of the first respondent (FFMECL), the widow claimed that the late Ajayi and her built the company together and that at no time was her deceased husband the sole beneficial shareholder or sole director of the company. She stated that at all relevant times, since the incorporation of FFMEC, she has always been a shareholder and director of the company.
On her marital status to the late Ajayi, the widow averred that she was legally married to the deceased and there was nothing like issue of divorce contrary to the claim of Helen Prest in their affidavit in support of the suit. She stated that at no point in time whatsoever did late Ajayi and her terminate their marriage and challenged Helen Prest to present any document in opposition to her marriage certificate.
On Helen Prest’s relationship with her late husband, the widow alleged that Helen Prest was her deceased husband’s adulteress who, despite knowing that late Ajayi was always a married man, continued to have an illicit relationship with him as his concubine.
She stated: “the second plaintiff (Helen Prest) was never in any legally cognizable relationship with my deceased husband, as he was always married to me at every relevant point in time. My late husband never cohabited (and never decided to cohabit) as common law partner with the second plaintiff in the United Kingdom. In actual fact, the second plaintiff was desirous of a marriage and legally cognizable relationship with my late husband, Dr. Ajayi, from the outset (including urging him to divorce me), a proposition which he consistently rejected throughout his lifetime despite the second plaintiff’s incessant solicitations for same.”
The widow stated further :”Although Helen Prest was a concubine of my deceased husband, she was never a shareholder, director, officer, employee or business partner of, or otherwise associated with the affairs of, FFMECL or any other companies in which my husband was a major shareholder (including those wherein I am also a shareholder), as my deceased husband never wanted his mistress, the second plaintiff, to be a part of FFMECL or any such companies in any capacity whatsoever”.