Justice C.C Ogunlana of an Ogun State High Court sitting in Shagamu, on Thursday gave Moji Obasanjo one month ultimatum to sign the Terms of Settlement with her estranged husband, Prof Mustapha Abiodun Akinkunmi or be ready to proceed with the divorce suit filed by him.
Interestingly, the settlement terms contained the conditions she gave to her husband before she could agree with the divorce that her husband seeks.
It would be recalled that Prof Akinkunmi had signed the agreement, but she (Moji) had not signed.
Meanwhile, the judge arrived at the decision sequel to the request by Moji’s lawyer, Susan Oluchi Agu who presented the terms of settlement to the court, asking for time for both parties to conclude and report to the court.
The lawyer insisted that she believed both parties could still settle their differences because of the child God has blessed them with.
Moji Obasanjo was however not present in court.
Oluchi’s position was opposed by Prof Akinkunmi’s lawyer, Lanre Olayinka who told the court that his client had filed his petition four times demanding the dissolution of the marriage.
He argued that his client had already signed the terms of the settlement, adding that Moji Obasanjo is only playing for time.
As a result of the heated argument between the lawyers, the judge had no choice but to intervene.
In his intervention, Justice Ogunsanya told both parties that the court cannot accept any terms of settlement unless both parties agree and sign the terms.
According to the court, “It is only then that I can direct both signatories to the registry for the necessary procedure but without it, there is nothing I can do.”
The judge thereafter gave both parties till March 28 to conclude with the terms of settlement failing which the divorce proceedings will commence.
As the proceedings ended, Prof Akinkunmi engaged his lawyer, insisting that his estranged wife is playing for time.
He said that “settlement” is part of Moji’s tactics to delay the divorce proceedings. He referred to her divorce proceedings with her former husband, Gbenga Obasanjo before an Ikeja High Court where she engaged in the same style.
“Moji wanted to eat her cake and have it back. She wants to stay married and still be frolicking around. No, no! I can’t continue with such a woman,” said the Professor as he walked towards his car, wearing ash-coloured Kaftan with blue sneakers to match.
According to the paper before the judge, Prof Akinkunmi had claimed that he is seeking dissolution “on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably on the facts that the Petitioner and the Respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 (two) years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition; and that since the marriage, the Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the Respondent.”
The academic giant had also accused Moji of infidelity in their marriage. “Barely some months after she moved into the matrimonial home, she went back to her old ways of living, more importantly engaging in extramarital affairs and this led to her moving out of her matrimonial home finally on 19th October 2018, and she has since refused and/or neglected to return to the matrimonial home.
“Since the marriage, the Respondent has behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent namely by her acts of extreme cruelty involving mental, emotional and physical abuse to the Petitioner, which behaviour by the Respondent has been emotionally and physiologically traumatic for the Petitioner.
“The Respondent has a habit of leaving the matrimonial home for parties and travelling outside the country without informing and/or seeking the consent of the Petitioner or any other person of her whereabouts and would refuse to account for her whereabouts when required of by the Petitioner.
“The Respondent has the habit of keeping late at nights. She is in the habit of uttering abusive words and making embarrassing remarks to the Petitioner,” he said.
The Petitioner further posited that: “The Respondent is in the habit of putting up an issue to evade her responsibilities as a wife and mother in the home. The Respondent is highly temperamental.
“She has the habit of quarreling with the Petitioner at every excuse, she has exhibited uncontrollable anger towards the Petitioner. Her character and behaviour are adverse to peace, and she is in the habit of damaging property as a result of her uncontrollable anger.
“This attitude of hers towards the Petitioner led to filing an action against her to curb her.”
Copyright THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
All rights reserved. This material and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org or 08022717838, 08033599492.