Grade A Customary Court, Court 2, sitting at Mapo, Ibadan, Oyo State, has heard the prayer of divorce brought before it by a man, Adeyanju, against his wife, Olajumoke, whom he alleged was troublesome, violent, always fighting and threatening him.
Adeyanju stated that he and Olajumoke were not married but that he impregnated her while they were dating each other.
Adeyanju added that Olajumoke had refused that he had peace of mind since she had their child.
The plaintiff stated that the defendant is difficult to deal with and is a thorn in his flesh.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant was in the habit of calling him on the phone incessantly and making unreasonable demands of him, which he found irritating and annoying.
He further said that she sometimes came to his office to fight him, thus disgracing him.
Adeyanju again said that Olajumoke was in the habit of threatening him.
He thus requested an order restraining Olajumoke from threatening and interfering with his private life.
Olajumoke pleaded not liable to the claims brought against her.
The defendant stated that the plaintiff dragged her to court because she insisted that he enrolled their two-year and six month-old child in school, which did not go down well with him.
Olajumoke prayed the court to rule that the plaintiff enrolled their child in school.
The defendant entreated the court for their child’s custody and further pleaded that it mandated the plaintiff to be responsible for her upkeep giving feeding, education, and health care priority.
Adeyanju testified, ‘My lord, Olajumoke, and I were never married.
‘I impregnated her while we were dating, and she had a baby girl.
‘I have never shirked my responsibility towards our child.
‘I give Olajumoke N10, 000 every week as allowance for her feeding and also meet other needs.
‘Unfortunately, Olajumoke, being an ingrate is unappreciative of all that I do and is never contented.
‘She is also troublesome and full of complaints.
‘Olajumoke is in the habit of calling me on the phone almost all the time, not minding the time of the day.
‘Anytime she calls, she makes unnecessary demands of me.
‘I hate to pick her calls because she is always threatening and shouting on me.
‘She sometimes comes to my place of abode to make trouble and fight me.
Olajumoke makes the whole matter worse by coming to my workplace to fight and disgrace me.
‘She of recent demanded and insisted that I must enrol our two-year-old daughter in school.
‘I turned down her request because our child is still an infant.
‘I told her I would rather have our child attend a pre-school for now, but she would not hear anything of such.
‘She has been raising dust since I gave my verdict.
‘Olajumoke is a thorn in the flesh.
‘She has constantly denied me peace of mind, and I can no longer tolerate her excesses
‘I plead for an order restraining her from threatening and interfering with my private life.
‘I stay committed to our child’s welfare.’
Olajumoke responded, ‘My lord, Adeyanju is a liar.
‘The only truth out of all he said is that we are not married. I had a child for him while we were dating
‘Hd dragged me to court because I insisted our child is ripe for school.
‘He lied about our daughter’s age.
‘She is not two years old, but two years and six months old, and therefore ripe enough to go to school.
‘I pray this honourable court to rule that he enrols our daughter in school and be responsible for her upkeep giving feeding,education and health care priority.
‘I likewise entreat the court for our child’s custody.
Giving judgment after she has heard both parties, the court president, Mrs O.E Owoseni, stated they never contacted any form of marriage or better still, they do not have a subsisting customary marriage which can be dissolved by the court.
She added that the defendant did not discredit the plaintiff’s evidence of being troublesome, calling incessantly and going to his office to fight and disgrace him.
According to Owoseni, non contradiction of the plaintiff’s evidence means admission.
Owoseni, thus, gave an order restraining the defendant from fighting, threatening, and humiliating the plaintiff in his place of abode and office.
Owoseni further stated that the interest of a child is the foremost consideration in determining the custody of a child, particularly when the child is of a tender age.
According to her, the child in question is two years and six months, a toddler who is better cared for by the mother.
Owoseni, therefore, granted the defendant custody of their child and mandated the plaintiff to be responsible for her upkeep, giving feeding, education, and health care priority.
She ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant N40, 000 per month towards their daughter’s upkeep with immediate effect.