Guys, it's always a problem having babymamas these days, just be ready for quarrels and fights...
An Igbosere Magistrate’s Court in Lagos has granted custody rights to
Eniola, son of billionaire businessman, Mike Adenuga, over his 16-month
old daughter.
But his estranged girlfriend with whom he had the child, Maggie Ogun, a
pharmacist, has sought the court’s leave to appeal the order.
In his earlier ruling, Chief Magistrate O. A. Ogunbowale had dismissed
her objection that Adenuga cannot take adequate care of the child.
The ruling: “Consequently, the applicant (Adenuga) is hereby granted an
overnight access to the subject (child) every fortnight from 8 am on
Saturday to12 noon on Sunday.”
The Nation reports that the order took effect from March 16 and would subsist until the case is determined.
But, Ms Ogun, through her lawyer, Mrs Marian Jones of the International
Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), has applied to the magistrate for
leave to appeal the ruling.
She is also praying for an order suspending the ruling’s execution, as
well as an order praying for a stay of proceedings pending the appeal’s
determination.
The magistrate’s absence stalled the application’s hearing on Wednesday.
Adenuga also applied to the court to change his counsel from the firm
of Adesokan & Adesokan to Akintunde Williams & Co.
The young Adenuga who works at Conoil Producing Limited, said he started “an amorous affair” with Ms Ogun in October 2013.
She informed him in 2014 that she was pregnant with his child, following which he took full responsibility for their welfare.
Adenuga said he paid for her ante natal care at Reddington Hospital,
gave her N100,000 monthly and took her to London where she was delivered
of a baby girl on October 23, 2014.
He said he paid the bills worth 22,000 pounds, purchased a first class
Lagos-London return ticket for her, and accommodated Ms Ogun and her
mother in his Cadogan Gardens, London home.
The applicant said Ms Ogun returned to Lagos last year January, and denied him access to the child.
“
I was denied access by the respondent to
see my daughter on the ground that I was not interested in marrying her.
I sought her understanding in this regard and reminded her of the fact
that we had both agreed to end the relationship as it was heading to
nowhere,” he said.
Adenuga said Ogun’s mother insisted that he would only see the child on
the condition that he married her daughter. Thus, he was not allowed to
see his child between last year March and October.
According to him, on one occasion that he was allowed access to the
house, he observed that Ms Ogun left his daughter in the care of a
security man who doubled as houseboy/nanny and her grandmother, a
septuagenarian.
“I was shocked at the unhealthy, unhygienic and unsafe environment in
which my daughter was being brought up,” he said, adding that he sends
N200,000 to Ms Ogun monthly for their upkeep.
Adenuga said he enrolled his daughter at a “world-class” crèche where he
paid N600,000 per term. He said he was only able to see his daughter
when he organised a birthday party for her, and when he took her and Ms
Ogun to Dubai on holiday.
He said, "On getting back to Nigeria, she reverted to denying me custody and access to my daughter."
On why he wants custody of the child, Adenuga said: “The respondent is
unwilling to create time needed to care for my daughter physically,
emotionally and mentally and I reasonably believe that my daughter
currently lacks motherly attention.”
But Ms Ogun, in her counter-claim, said she never denied Adenuga access
to his child. She said from last May to October, she took her daughter
to the applicant’s mother’s residence in Victoria Island every weekend.
She said she also took the daughter to the applicant’s father’s house on
Banana Island at least thrice a week and sometimes slept over.
She claimed that,
problem arose when Adenuga’s mother demanded that she and the daughter spend two weeks monthly at her residence. She said her family refused because she was not married to Adenuga.
According to her, she was trying to resolve the issue amicably when
Adenuga, on October 13 last year, came to her home in company of a
policeman demanding that his daughter be produced, and in the process
assaulted her mother and damaged her phone.
She denied keeping her daughter in the care of a security man,
saying: “During my working hours and prior to when my daughter started
attending crèche, she is left in the care of my grandmother and my
nanny.”
She said the only time her daughter was ill, she was diagnosed with an
infection common to children when they start crawling and teething and
was promptly treated.
“I have never denied the applicant access to my daughter, rather, he
wants custody. I don’t believe it is in my daughter’s interest that the
applicant be granted custody of my daughter,” she said.
According to her, Adenuga “is not suited to cope with the demands of
having full custody of a 16-month old female child.” She added that “he
does not have a definite schedule” and “comes home by
12."
\
