Obasanjo

Justice Lateefa Okunnu, this morning struck out the suit filed by wife of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Taiwo Obasanjo Seeking to stop the wedding of their son Olujonwo.

Named as respondents in the suit were Chief Sir (Dr.) Kessington Adebutu and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo.

Mrs Taiwo had through the suit filed before the Family Court sought an order to postpone the wedding of Olujonwo beyond May, 2017 on the ground of a spiritual advice she was given concerning him.

She also prayed to court to compel all stakeholders in the wedding to agree to postpone the wedding so as to allow her perform her parental duties towards his son.

Addressing the court this morning, counsel to the respondents, Bode Olanipekun, urged the court to dismiss the suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Olanipekun stated that by virtue of section 18 of the Marriage Act and Section 261 of the Child’s Act, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear that matter because the child in the suit is above 18 years.

Olanipekun also pointed out that claims in the applicants suit does not disclose any reasonable cause of action.

He also drew the attention of the court to a letter purportedly written to a church with the notion that the court has given an injunctions stopping the marriage.

Mrs Obasanjo’s lawyer, Adeyemi Adegbite, however urged the court to disregard the argument of the respondent and postponed the wedding.

In a short ruling, Okunnu held that her court being a family court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a matter involving an adult who is over 33 years old.

In the ruling Okunnu said: ” On March 27, 2017 I directed counsels to address me on whether this court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit over a child that is an adult.

“This court adjudicates on matters involving children under 18 years and the subject matter is this suit in a 33 years adult.

” I regret to say that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Moreover this suit does not disclose any cause of action.

” This suit is hereby dismissed in its entirety”

The judge also noted that the letter purported written to the church conducting the wedding was premised on a wrong notion as she never made an pronouncement concerning the meeting.