•Appellants challenge reliance on disputed marriage certificate, allege judicial overreach
Wale Igbintade
Former Miss Nigeria, Mrs. Helen Prest Ajayi, and her daughter, Tomisin Ajayi, have asked the Court of Appeal in Lagos to set aside the June 17, 2026 judgment of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, in the ongoing dispute over the estate of late medical entrepreneur, Dr. Tosin Ajayi.
In a Notice of Appeal filed by their counsel, Abiodun Owonikoko, SAN, the appellants contended that the trial court committed several errors in law, including reliance on a disputed marriage certificate, failure to give effect to a prior consent judgment allegedly recognising Helen Prest Ajayi as a wife of the deceased, mischaracterisation of Tomisin Ajayi’s status, and making orders beyond the issues placed before the court.
The appellants first challenged the trial court’s finding that Mrs. Adenike Ajayi was the sole surviving wife of the deceased and therefore exclusively entitled to administer his intestate estate.
They argued that this conclusion was reached on the basis of a disputed marriage certificate whose authenticity was a central issue at trial.
According to them, the respondents failed to establish the validity of the certificate with credible evidence.
They maintained that records from the Ijebu-Ode Marriage Registry contained no official entry of the alleged marriage, and that the document relied upon was merely a photocopy which was only certified during the pendency of the proceedings.
They further stated that under cross-examination, the 1st respondent admitted that the registry could not locate any official record of the marriage.
The appellants argued that in the absence of a marriage register, ledger entry, or independent verification, the trial court’s reliance on the document was against the weight of evidence.
The appellants also faulted the trial court for allegedly failing to give effect to an earlier consent judgment delivered by the Lagos State High Court in January 2021 in Suit No. ID/7096GCMW/2020.
They contended that the judgment had recognised both Helen Prest Ajayi and Adenike Ajayi as co-wives of the deceased.
They stated that the consent judgment was duly pleaded, admitted in evidence as Exhibit C13, and formed part of their defence.
However, they argued that despite its existence, the trial court proceeded to describe Helen Prest Ajayi as merely a mistress of the deceased.
According to them, the earlier judgment, being subsisting and delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction, created an issue estoppel which the trial court was bound to respect.
On the status of Tomisin Ajayi, the appellants further argued that the trial court wrongly concluded that she was born out of wedlock.
They maintained that this finding stemmed from the court’s rejection of Helen Prest Ajayi’s marital status and failed to properly evaluate evidence presented before it.
They pointed to a United Kingdom-issued birth certificate which, they said, identified Dr. Tosin Ajayi and Helen Prest Ajayi as Tomisin’s parents.
They further contended that the evidence before the court showed that Tomisin resided exclusively with the deceased, Dr. Tosin Ajayi, and her mother from birth until the deceased’s death.
The appellants further claimed that under cross-examination, the 1st respondent admitted that Tomisin was the deceased’s child and had, at some point, been invited to participate in discussions relating to the administration of the estate.
They argued that despite this, the trial court still reached a conclusion that effectively portrayed her as a child born outside marriage.
The appellants also accused the trial judge of going beyond the scope of the issues submitted for determination.
They maintained that the suit before the High Court was limited to identifying persons entitled to apply for Letters of Administration over the estate.
However, they argued that the court proceeded to make findings describing Helen Prest Ajayi as “a mistress, undocumented partner and mother of his child,” even though no such relief was sought by the claimants.
According to them, these pronouncements were unnecessary for the determination of the dispute and amounted to judicial overreach.
They further contended that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by making pronouncements on the distribution of the estate.
They argued that under the Administration of Estates Law, the distribution of an intestate estate is the responsibility of duly appointed personal representatives under supervision of the Probate Registry, not the court at the stage of determining entitlement to Letters of Administration.
By prescribing specific distribution ratios, the appellants said the trial court improperly assumed powers reserved for estate administrators and ventured into matters not before it.
Consequently, the appellants urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment in its entirety, uphold their defence, and dismiss the respondents’ suit.
They also sought a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal, warning that enforcement could affect substantial estate assets and render the appeal nugatory if ultimately successful.
